The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

The Rt Hon Donald Dewar

Mr Speaker: It is my sad duty to report to the Assembly the death of the First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Donald Dewar. A motion of condolence has been tabled in the name of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Motion made:
That a message of condolence be sent to the family of the late Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP, as follows:
"We, the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, extend our deepest sympathy on their grievous loss to the family of the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on the death of the First Minister of Scotland, and wish to record our recognition of his devoted service to his country." —[The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister]

Rt Hon David Trimble: The very bleakness of the weather this morning will, for many of us, reflect our spirits as we contemplate the sad and untimely death of Scotland’s First Minister, the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP. The most that we can do on this sad occasion is to try to find, in words, some dignified way of honouring Donald Dewar’s memory. Formally, we will be conveying a message of condolence to his family, and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. But many of us will also want to take some time to reflect on the friend that we knew.
The last time I met Donald was at the Joint Ministerial Council meeting in Edinburgh at the beginning of September, and he appeared to have made a full recovery from his heart operation. Consequently, his sudden, unexpected death brings with it a particularly keen sense of loss.
Like a number of other Colleagues here, I knew Donald Dewar both as a fellow parliamentarian and personally. That he held high office throughout a long and varied political career without making a single enemy stands as an eloquent testament to the man that was DonaldDewar. As many of us know, his life was not without personal disappointment and some sadness. Nevertheless, he bore these difficulties, including his recent illness, with great personal dignity and equanimity.
He was widely respected for the natural modesty with which he disguised his immense intellectual and personal abilities and also for the great personal wit and good humour that he displayed. I recollect many occasions on which he summed up complicated debates at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, without a note, very sharp and keen in his comments with a full and complete grasp of the matters he was dealing with.
Donald’s great political achievement was to carry through the proposals for a Scottish Parliament, which he steered on to the statute book and then presided over as its First Minister. He deeply believed that the creation of the Scottish Parliament would be a worthy expression of Scottish national identity within a United Kingdom framework, and he was able to see that dream become a reality. It was undoubtedly the crowning achievement of his life.
In the untimely and sudden death of Donald Dewar many of us will feel that we have lost a friend and, institutionally, someone who would have co-operated closely with ourselves and other Administrations. We can do no more than to take some measure of satisfaction that our lives have been enriched by knowing him and that his achievements will live on after him and be a real inspiration to us all.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister. I was deeply saddened at the death last Wednesday of Scotland’s First Minister, Donald Dewar. I wish to extend my sympathy to his family. My thoughts are with them at this very sad time.
Donald was a towering figure in every way in political life, particularly at Westminster in the course of his long and distinguished career there, and most recently as Scotland’s First Minister in the long-awaited democratically elected Parliament. He had campaigned passionately and tirelessly for devolution. It was fitting that he should be the First Minister of Scotland’s Parliament.
He was immensely proud of what had been achieved for Scotland through devolution. Last July, at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, he said
"I count myself lucky indeed to be playing my part in the hard work of turning a vision into a reality".
It is sad to think now that he will not be there to continue his work as First Minister. I got to know Donald well through our time together at Westminster. He was a parliamentarian of the highest order. My memories of him will be of a man who was universally respected, a down-to-earth politician, yet a learned person with a deep and passionate devotion that he brought to those whom he served and to everything that he did.
He had a unique blend of integrity, sharp intellect, humanity and vision, coupled with a very keen sense of humour. He will be sorely missed, but his legacy will live on in the Scottish Parliament, and his place in history is secure as the architect of that achievement.
"The people know that they have lost a friend."
Those were the words of Donald Dewar at the funeral in 1994 at Cluny Church in Edinburgh of his colleague John Smith. In repeating those words today of Donald Dewar, I can pay him no higher tribute.

Mr Peter Robinson: I support the sending of condolences to the family of the late Donald Dewar. I also wish to associate my party colleagues and myself with the tributes made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I knew Donald Dewar for many years, and he carried out all his political business in a straight-talking and straightforward manner. Many politicians who attain high office seem to drift above the rest of their political colleagues, but those of us who knew Donald Dewar recognised that he never lost his common touch. He was very much a man of the people.
I got to know him particularly well when he was the Labour Party’s Chief Whip. I had considerable contact with him at that time, and I greatly respected his sincerity and his determination. That determination was evident in the vigour with which he took forward the project of devolution for the Scottish people. It was also evident in the way he made his own health a lower priority than his duties as First Minister for Scotland.
I express the condolences of all my Colleagues to his constituents, his party, the people of Scotland, his friends and, most of all, his family.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I would like to associate myself with the comments that have been made. Mr Dewar was First Minister of the Scottish Parliament — a Parliament that he did much to create. He died, aged 63, with the satisfaction of having achieved an outstanding personal ambition. His premature death has deprived the people of Scotland of a great leader, but his place in Scottish history has been assured by that achievement. As Scottish First Minister, he obviously faced problems, but he described the experience as the most worthwhile of his political life. He relished the challenge, despite his health problems.
I met Mr Dewar on three occasions, so I cannot claim to have known him very well. He was described as a witty pessimist, and I cannot help but think that with that characteristic he might have had something to offer this Assembly. He was well known as someone who listened to the opinions of others. He could argue his own point of view but was always willing to admit publicly that others had made a good point. That broad- mindedness is an example to us all.
On behalf of Sinn Féin, I extend condolences to his immediate family, his colleagues and the people of Scotland. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Sean Neeson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I identify myself with the remarks that have been made. I met Donald Dewar on several occasions and always found him to be a very strong advocate of moderation. He was a Scotsman in the truest sense of the word. It was significant that, after the 1997 general election, he gave up the opportunity of a senior Cabinet post in order to concentrate on Scottish affairs. He realised the benefits of devolution for Scotland, and he also recognised the benefits of regionalism and subsidiarity.
In recent days I have read several obituaries saying that Donald was a shy man. Maybe he was, but at least he got things done and he gave the people of Scotland their Parliament. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I extend sympathy to his family, especially to his son Ian and his daughter Marion, and to the people of Scotland, who will remember him as the person who gave them back their Parliament.

Mr David Ervine: I associate myself with all the comments that have been made. My party and I have been shocked by the death of a man who might well be described as a beacon of integrity. At a time when politicians do not have a good name, Donald Dewar was a shining light. As the First Minister has said, Mr Dewar went through his political career without making enemies.
I am also conscious of the loss to his family, friends, colleagues and the people of Scotland. When they look back at his achievements in the course of what was, by today’s standards, a short life, they will see the lasting testimony in bright lights. The building blocks of devolution have been put in place in Scotland, and politics has been brought closer to the people. Those are the dreams that Donald Dewar lived for.
We can say wonderful things about the man, and he absolutely deserves them. But what will we say about each other in the future? If there is integrity in politics, it is epitomised by the likes of Donald Dewar. We could do worse than emulate him as we push on with our devolution.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I want to associate the Women’s Coalition with the message of condolence from the First and Deputy First Ministers. Everything that has been said about Donald Dewar has left those of us in politics questioning ourselves. He led the way, and he was regarded in Scotland as a remarkable man for doing so. It is particularly sad that his death should come so soon after that of another great Scotsman, John Smith. His death is a loss not only to Scotland and its parliamentarians, but to Westminster. We have much in common with the Scottish parliamentarians, and our hearts go out to them. It was amazing to watch them in grief; clearly, he meant a great deal to each of them personally.
The director of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust recently visited Donald Dewar to speak about the work in the communities in Northern Ireland. He was so moved by what AvilaKilmurray told him about what had been done here over the years that he offered, in a personal capacity, to host a meeting for the trust in Scotland in order to enable them to further their work in Northern Ireland. That speaks volumes about what he would have liked to do for the people of Northern Ireland.
We extend our condolences to the people and parliamentarians of Scotland and to his family, in particular his son and daughter. We express our heartfelt grief to those who will miss him most, his immediate family.
Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
Resolved:
That a message of condolence be sent to the family of the late Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP, as follows:
"We, the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, extend our deepest sympathy on their grievous loss to the family of the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on the death of the First Minister of Scotland, and wish to record our recognition of his devoted service to his country."

Mr Speaker: As a mark of respect to the memory of the late Donald Dewar, the Assembly will be adjourned for one hour.
Adjourned at 10.50 am.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Alban Maginness: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to raise this point at the beginning of business, but I did not want to interrupt the message of condolence and the speeches about Mr Dewar.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is visiting Northern Ireland this week. Considering the outstanding contribution that he has made to world peace and peaceful understanding, will the Business Committee consider, as a matter of urgency, extending an invitation to His Holiness to attend the Assembly and, if appropriate, address it. If the Business Committee is not in a position to do this, will it invite him to visit the Assembly during his itinerary to Northern Ireland?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order. However, if the Member so wishes, he can refer the matter to his party Whip who could raise it with the Business Committee. It is not a matter for the Assembly to decide.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill

Mr Donovan McClelland: The next business is the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. I call the Minister Ms Bairbre de Brún.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that due to the non-attendance of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety this business now falls? If it does not fall, what happens to it? It is on the Order Paper as the next item of business. I would be grateful for clarification.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The business now falls, and it will go back to the Business Committee for a decision as to when it will return to the House.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members who have a strong interest in this piece of legislation and are ready to make a contribution on it will be very concerned. In view of the unexplained absence of the Minister, Members no longer have an opportunity to make their contributions, and the Assembly cannot progress the business set down in the Order Paper. That is shameful, and it highlights the attitude of Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers to the House.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It will go to the Business Committee which will decide when it will come before the House again.

Dr Joe Hendron: I am sure that there is a good reason for the Minister’s absence. Is it in order to ask for a 10-minute suspension?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is out of order.

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I disagree with the Member. The motion should fall. The Minister has no vision and no strategy. She has only reviews. Her absence is blatant ignorance.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Second Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: That the Second Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill (NIA 5/00) be agreed.
This Bill will provide a modest extension of a landlord’s liability for a failure to repair defective premises. It implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Advisory Committee contained in its report on the subject, which was published in 1998. The committee, in that report, noted that its objective in this reform was to remove a gap in the law with regard to injuries which occur on dangerous premises and, in particular, to remove the perceived immunity which a landlord of such property currently enjoys. It is a general rule of negligence that a person must act with reasonable care to ensure that his acts and omissions do not cause injury to those who may foreseeably be affected by such acts or omissions.
In relation to the occupation of land and buildings, a principle has arisen which provides that an occupier of premises must observe a common duty of care. In other words, an occupier must take such care as is reasonable to see that his or her visitors will be reasonably safe in using the premises.
One major exception to this principle of care is to be found in relation to tenanted property. A landlord of dangerous property remains favoured by an historical immunity dating from a decision in an early twentieth century House of Lords case, Cavalier vs Pope. While the law has developed to a certain extent in this area, the last relevant reforming legislation was section4 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. In its report, the committee felt that the landlord was still unduly favoured by the current position. In 1972, the legislature in England and Wales acted on the anomaly by the introduction of section4 of the Defective Premises Act1972, which extended the responsibility of a landlord to cover those
"who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises."
It focused on the contractual obligations owed by landlords to their tenants and materially widened the ambit of their liability. While the rest of the DefectivePremises Act was mirrored in the provisions of the Defective Premises (NorthernIreland) Order1975, the section relating to a landlord’s liability was not included. Ministers omitted this because of the high number of bomb-damage properties and derelict buildings at what was a time of severe troubles in the early to mid 1970s. To impose an extra burden on a landlord then was considered to be too onerous.
12.00
However, the Law Reform Advisory Committee, in its report, expressed the view that that rationale no longer had the force that it had had in the 1970s. Circumstances have changed, and the threat to property from terrorist bombing is no longer of the same degree as it was then. Housing conditions have improved considerably. There has been redevelopment in poorer areas, principally undertaken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and there is the continued availability of grants to improve housing. Those were among the factors that led the committee to recommend a change in the law.
I now turn to the main features of the Bill. I have shown how section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 extended a landlord’s liability to include those who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the premises. The committee was content with this wording and commended it in its report. The draft Bill therefore contains a similar provision in clause 1(2). This provision will replace the limited statutory claim available under the Occupiers’ Liability (Northern Ireland) Act 1957 and will, in effect, extend the ambit of the landlord’s liability.
This new duty of care owed by the landlord will apply if he or she knows of the defect or if he or she ought to have known of it in all the circumstances. In some ways, it is devised to ensure that rogue landlords take precautions to keep their properties in good repair. The duty is extended further by the removal of the requirement of an obligation to repair by providing that the landlord is under a duty, either where he has undertaken to do repairs or where he has a right, express or implied, to carry out maintenance and repairs.
The committee was, however, conscious of the fact that there remain in this jurisdiction differences in rent law which do not lend themselves well to a carte blanche change. Several consultees — in particular, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive — expressed concerns that liability imposed on certain tenancies would be onerous. The committee, on balance, accepted those concerns, and the Bill reflects its recommendation that landlords holding restricted or regulated tenancies should be exempted from the proposed changes. A further exemption is afforded to owners of ground rents and nominal rents. Such landlords do not maintain the same degree of economic interest or control over their property as in the usual landlord-tenant relationship, and accordingly they are excluded from the proposed liability.
Members will note that the legislation is to take effect one year after it receives Royal Assent. That is designed to allow those landlords whose premises may require work to be carried out a generous amount of time in which to do it. It will also give other landlords time to carry out any necessary inspections and to prepare for the new legal framework. While for the majority of landlords such work will be minimal, I warn those who may have let their property fall into an unsatisfactory state to do something about it.
This is a short piece of law reform that should only have a limited effect on current practice and procedures. The majority of landlords keep their properties in good repair and already owe certain duties and responsibilities to their tenants that this proposed legislation will not affect. Such landlords have no reason to fear from the reforms as outlined. However, landlords who do not keep such a diligent eye on their properties and who allow them to lapse into a state which could potentially cause injury or damage will have to take note of this legislation. If it helps them to focus on their responsibilities and ensures a safe environment for their tenants and others, it will have served its purpose. Accordingly I commend the Bill to the Assembly. I will try to answer such points as are raised by Members when I wind up at the end of the debate.

Mr Francie Molloy: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it is a short measure, dealing with the liability of landlords. It is important because of changes in the use of houses that had been family homes, many of which have now been turned into flats for students and others. Landlords should live up to their responsibilities towards their tenants. The Bill will go some way towards making the necessary changes.
In the time before the legislation comes into operation we should have some means of inspecting properties to ensure that they live up to fire safety and health standards. After the Bill is passed, we should ensure that speedy action can be taken to bring properties up to standard.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Generally speaking, I welcome the Bill. It will certainly help those of us who live in areas in which there is urban dereliction.
There is one thing, however, that I would like to take up with the Minister. Dereliction may occur because of a dispute over ownership of the property or because there has been a family feud and no one can say who really owns a property. There is often a long legal wrangle. In the interim, not only do the premises fall derelict but they are open to the abuses that are common in urban areas. Tenants who are not proper tenants may abuse a property that they have simply usurped. Responsibility for making the property safe still falls to the local district council. Will the Bill include powers to deal with dereliction if the title deed owner or landlord cannot be identified? It is an area of great concern to local councils, and that is why I raise the issue, although I am generally happy to support the Bill.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I welcome the Bill, particularly as I represent a constituency in which there is so much property for lease and for rent. It will extend the rights of individuals, with particular reference to lawful visitors and neighbours, as well as occupiers.
I note one point. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to human rights issues and says that the Bill
"interferes with possession and peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights."
However, it is also argued that the extension of landlords’ liability is a legitimate aim and would be to the benefit of the community at large, and the terms of the Bill agree with that latter argument. When the Bill goes to Committee Stage I would like some attention to be paid to the implications of that.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
It will also have an impact on targeting social need. At the moment, the Bill says it has no adverse impact. Does that mean it may have a positive impact or will it have no impact whatsoever? It is a simple question. Since it seems to be such a useful introduction to people’s rights, particularly in relation to property in deprived areas, I imagine that the Committee will want to pay some attention to that.

Mr Speaker: Ms McWilliams raised the question of conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. I need to speak about that.
As the House will know, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker’s Office is to ensure that Bills coming to First Stage conform with the European Convention on Human Rights and are within the competence of the Assembly. There are circumstances where differing rights interfere with each other and the matter is then one of the balance of public interest. Where, in my judgement, the balance of public interest is that the Bill should be brought forward in the form in which the Minister proposes that information would be contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Assembly would then be able to make a judgement on the balance of public interest because it could introduce an amendment at Consideration Stage. Where a Bill may be a changed by amendment and there is a balance of public interest which, in my judgement, is being served by the proposed legislation, I will allow it to proceed to Second Stage. We will have to make a further judgement before it reaches the Final Stage.
This will be the situation where there is a genuine balance and, in my view, the benefit to the public is in the Assembly’s being able to make a judgement on that balance. Where this is reasonable, I will permit the measure to go forward.
I mention the matter now because this is the first time that the issue has been raised in this way. It seems to me that the Assembly needs to be in a position to consider such matters thoughtfully.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the intention of the Bill, though I note that there are several areas where the wording, and what I would imagine is the intention, seems to be at variance with the explanatory memorandum. Clause 1 refers to
"all persons who might reasonably be affected by defects in the state of the premises".
That seems to be a wide definition. It is reasonable for a landlord to be liable for persons who are rightfully and lawfully on the premises, but I do not think that he should be liable for those who are not, and the explanatory memorandum implies that that would be the case. That clause will require some attention in Committee to ensure that it is not placing too large a burden on the landlord.
I also note that it is intended that this liability should not apply to the owners of ground rents. I think that that is appropriate as the ground rent owner is at some distance from the premises on the whole and would not normally expect to have any liability of that kind.
I note that what constitutes a ground rent owner is narrowly defined in the Bill. It refers to a tenancy under a lease where the rent payable is a yearly amount of less than £1. From work done on the Ground Rents Bill it has become evident that that should be "£1 or less", as a great many ground rents are in the sum of £1. The definition does not appear to cover those.
Quite a number of ground rents are of more than £1, and I am not sure that it is fair that such a ground rent owner should find himself within the scope of this Bill. That item need not prove fatal to the Bill, but it will certainly require attention during the Committee stage.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank all Members who have commented on the general principle of this Bill. Everybody has welcomed it, or has welcomed its stated intent and purposes. Members appreciate that the aim of the Bill — the provision for tenants of property free from potentially dangerous defects — is worthy of support. In my opening remarks, I said that the Bill was a modest piece of legislation. However, it should focus the attention of that minority of landlords who do not take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of their properties.
Mr Francie Molloy, Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, welcomed the Bill but raised several points in relation to student lets and student property. The proposed changes can really be beneficial only to student properties. However, I should say this is not a wholesale reform of landlord/tenant law. It is a relatively modest extension of the liability that already exists. Any landlord who keeps his property in a good state of repair has nothing whatsoever to be concerned about in relation to these proposals. A landlord already owes a duty of care to his tenants, including student tenants. In effect, this legislation bolsters that duty.
Mr Molloy also raised the question of fire and safety. There is separate legislation covering those requirements and standards. The Bill does not have a direct bearing on those issues. However, property defects that could possibly constitute safety risks might be addressed as a result of the Bill, so obviously it does no harm. It does not diminish any of the legal effects or intents in that regard.
Mr Gibson raised the issue of dereliction and the problems that councils have. Unfortunately this legislation does not assist with that problem. It relates to landlord liability. It deals with a clear landlord-tenant relationship where people know who the landlord and the tenant are. To that extent, it does not touch on that problem identified by MrGibson. However, I note the fact that he welcomes the effect and intent of the legislation per se.
Ms McWilliams gave a general welcome to the Bill, and I appreciate that. However, she made a point about human-rights issues. I am sure that when Francie Molloy and his Committee further consider this Bill they will make a point of satisfying themselves on the question of its possible interference with rights. The Bill could, on its face, be deemed to interfere with possession and peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I believe that the Bill complies with the convention, not least because the extension of landlord’s liability would be for the general good of the community at large. In your own remarks, Mr Speaker, you made the point that it is for the Assembly to consider the balance between those particular points, arguments and considerations. I have no doubt that the Finance and Personnel Committee will take that up.
As for targeting social need, the point is that, in policy terms, this clearly does not in any way work against the commitments and principles of the Executive and the obligations of all Departments in this matter. The Bill does not directly target social need in itself, but it should enable people who are in the particular social need of being tenants in defective premises to have some form of legal redress. The Bill contains no targeting social need considerations that are to be directly pursued or executed by given Government Departments.
James Leslie raised some points in relation to possible variations between language in the Bill and language in the memorandum. Obviously, the Assembly will be considering and voting on the language in the Bill. As I said that language was chosen following the recommendation of the Law Reform Advisory Committee, and it reflects similar legislation across the water that was not adopted here because of the troubles and the high number of bomb-damaged properties back in the 1970s. On the basis of experience across the water, some of the possible fears or misgivings that Mr Leslie identified certainly have not come to pass with the legislation as it has been experienced in England and Wales.
Mr Leslie also queries whether the wording should give rights to people who might be on the premises illegally. Will this Bill give extra rights to trespassers? In theory that is possible. However, in practice a trespasser is already owed a duty of care by the tenant under the Occupiers’ Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. In addition, the standard is that of someone who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects, and a trespasser would have to show in court that they satisfied that criterion.
Mr Leslie also mentioned the need for consistency in the treatment of ground rent in this and other Bills. The Committee and I will endeavour to make sure that there is as much consistency as possible and necessary between different pieces of legislation.
I look forward to further consideration of the measure, both in the House and in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill (NIA Bill 5/00) be agreed.

Personal Statement by First Minister

Mr Speaker: The First Minister has sought leave to make a personal statement to the Assembly. Before calling the FirstMinister, I remind the House of the requirements and arrangements for a personal statement. A Member may request permission from the Speaker to make a personal statement, and the Speaker must see the detailed terms of the statement. The statement is not a question, it is not debatable, and questions can not be asked regarding it. There is one exception: another Member who is involved may remark on whether he or she accepts the statement. Any such remark must be on the terms of the statement and on whether that Member is prepared to accept it.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I would like to make a personal statement to correct the record of this House regarding a statement I made during a debate on Monday 9October. In that debate, I responded to a remark made from a sedentary position regarding the circumstances surrounding a telephone call that I had received. The call was from the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States and took place on Thursday 28September. It had been suggested, earlier in the debate, that I had initiated the call with MrBerger. At that time, I consulted my officials and, on the basis of what I had been told, informed the House that neither I nor my staff had placed a call with MrBerger. I was informed at the end of the week that an official in my office did telephone an official of the National Security Council on the afternoon of Thursday 28September. That phone call was to ascertain what knowledge, if any, the US administration had regarding the subject matter of the UTV programme to be broadcast that evening. Later that afternoon, I did receive a telephone call from MrBerger.
I take this opportunity to place on record the correct sequence of events. I regret that I may have inadvertently misled the House on this matter.

Mr Speaker: Having consulted Hansard, I call MrDodds, who is the Member concerned in the reference to comment from a sedentary position.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am glad that the FirstMinister has taken the opportunity to confirm the truth of my comments in the House during that debate. I am disappointed that, at the time, he rejected what I said. He now asks the House to accept that he was not aware of this at the time. We will leave that for Members to judge, in the light of his previous statements and pledges to this House — which have turned out to be false.
This is a significant statement. It is obvious to everyone that those at high levels in the American Government would have been unaware of the contents of a programme broadcast by a regional television authority unless it had been drawn to their attention. It is now clear that it was the FirstMinister’s staff who placed the call. They alerted officials to the fact that there was a programme coming out that would undermine everything that the FirstMinister and the pro-agreement parties have said about SinnFéin/IRA’s commitment to decommissioning.
The appropriate response would have been to come to the House and move for the exclusion of SinnFéin/IRA from the Government of Northern Ireland, not to urge the American authorities to try to get the programme changed. The fact that the FirstMinister chose to go for cover-up, rather than exclusion, is the greatest testimony to his attitude to SinnFéin/IRA decommissioning and to democracy in this House. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Speaker, you indicated that some limited comment might be made on the statement. I ask you whether, in the course of such comment, it is in order to make statements that are untrue.

Mr Speaker: The First Minister has made a statement to correct the record, and it seems to me that he has done so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Street Trading Bill: Second Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Street Trading Bill (NIA 2/00) be agreed.
This Bill replaces the provisions of the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929, which relate to the licensing of street trading and which enable district councils to regulate street trading in their district. That legislation was designed to cater for the type of street trading prevalent in the early twentieth century. Over the past 70 years there have been significant changes in the manner of trading: hot-food and ice cream vans, roadside sales, car boot sales, moveable stalls et cetera were rare or unheard of in 1929.
There has also been a marked increase in the level of street trading, including market trading. The most significant change in recent years has been the alarming rise in illegal street trading, namely trading without a licence, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. While the current legislation provides for fines for that kind of trading, district councils have not found it to be an effective deterrent.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The introduction of the Bill is the culmination of a wide-ranging review of the existing legislation, carried out in consultation with as wide a range of interested groups as possible, including district councils, the police and street traders. [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Owing to the number of private conversations that are going on in the Chamber, it is extremely difficult for some of us to hear the Minister speaking.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Bill contains a number of fairly detailed provisions. I would like to take a few minutes to provide Members with an overview of the main measures included. Unlike the 1929 Act, the Bill makes it clear that all street trading, other than certain specified exemptions, will require a licence. Under current legislation, only those trading from a stationary position are required to have a licence, the interpretation of which has caused district councils a good deal of difficulty.
Under the Bill, district councils will firmly designate the streets where they will allow street traders to operate from a stationary position. In this way, the system will become more open and understandable. Prospective traders will know where trading is to be permitted. In addition, residents, or those owning businesses in the area in question, will have an opportunity to make representations to the council about the proposal that trading be permitted in the area. Traders classed as mobile by a council will still require a licence but may, at the council’s discretion, be permitted to operate in non-designated streets.
The Bill sets out much more clearly the responsibilities of district councils in administering the scheme and in keeping applicants and licence-holders fully informed. It will ensure that opportunities are provided for representations to be made about proposed decisions, and extends the time limits within which appeals may be made.
District councils will have discretion in a number of aspects of the licensing procedure. A council will be able to decide the duration of the licence to be issued, up to a maximum of three years. In addition, the fee to be charged for a licence will no longer be set centrally but will be determined by each district council and set at a level sufficient for it to recover its full costs in administering the scheme. A provision has also been included to allow district councils to grant temporary licences to permit trading for a limited period at special events, such as fairs and festivals.
Councils will have discretion to deal with certain offences by issuing a fixed penalty notice to the offender. It is hoped that this will result in a saving of time and the administration costs of taking cases to court. Under the terms of the Bill, an authorised council officer or police officer will have the power to seize goods and stalls from vendors trading without a licence. A court which convicts an unlicensed trader will have the power to order the forfeiture of the items seized. Councils find that existing legislation provides no effective deterrent to combat the activities of unlicensed traders.
The Bill also seeks to protect the rights of individuals. District councils will be permitted to seize goods for evidence purposes only, and if proceedings do not result, the items may have to be returned to the trader. Under the proposed legislation, if a court finds that an unlawful seizure of goods has been made, the owner can seek compensation.
The Bill aims to provide a modern and effective framework for the regulation of street trading in the Province. Street trading, if properly regulated, can add colour and vibrancy to the centres of our towns and cities. The main aim is to support a licensing system to avoid nuisance, interference and inconvenience to persons and vehicles through open, fair and workable legislation which provides district councils with a high degree of flexibility.
I hope that I have provided Members with some assessment of the measures contained in the Bill, which I commend to the Assembly.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, I welcome the introduction of the Street Trading Bill. Committee members will be considering the contents of the Bill in detail, so I will be brief.
The current street trading legislation, which dates back to 1929, must be updated to provide proper regulation. Unlicensed street traders have grown in number in recent years and the current legislation has proved to be ineffective to control their activities. Licensed and controlled street traders have a role to play in our towns and cities. Many towns benefit from the visitors attracted to properly managed markets. Internationally renowned markets in such cities as Dublin, London and Sydney are tourist attractions in themselves. Almost every European city has a market, which can serve as a meeting place for tourists while drawing people to the towns or city centres and enhancing them.
Markets in areas such as Enniskillen, Dungannon and Aughnacloy may not be so famous, but they attract shoppers, which provides a spin-off benefit for the town’s permanent retailers. In this age of out-of-town shopping, any feature that attracts people to town centres is welcome. Markets add vibrancy, colour and fabric to town centres and must therefore be developed, rather than hampered or hamstrung.
Nevertheless, many rate-paying retailers object to unlicensed street traders who pay nothing. They often set up business in inappropriate locations where they can be a nuisance to the public and retailers. We must have equitable legislation which permits street trading but creates the level playing field needed to create a mutually beneficial working relationship between street traders and retailers. The Committee will look in detail at all the issues covered by the Bill. Their findings will be reported to the Assembly prior to the Consideration Stage. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Alban Maginness: In general, I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, and I congratulate the Minister for bringing it to the House. I agree that street trading brings colour and vibrancy to our streets but, if not properly regulated, it is also a considerable nuisance. The Bill focuses on and attempts to remedy that type of mischief.
I am speaking as a Member of this House but also as a member of Belfast City Council. The council has noted the considerable annoyance, inconvenience and nuisance caused by unregulated street trading and has been to the forefront of lobbying the Government over the years to try to remedy the situation. The Bill will provide a remedy, as it will update a rather archaic Act of Parliament, the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 and bring the regulations into line with modern practice. Enforcement has proven problematic. The council found that traders evaded the law by ignoring those who approached them, or by relying on the cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures contained within the 1929 Act. Therefore illegal street traders regularly got off without any penalty. This Bill will mean that traders will have to be properly licensed; that the licence will have to be carried with the trader; that those with him must be under his control; and that they will have to trade in designated areas. That system is as welcome as it is overdue.
The powers contained within the Bill are central to dealing with illegality. In particular, seizing of goods has been very difficult in the past, but the power to seize them is vital if we are to eradicate the scourge and mischief of illegal and unregulated street trading.
The Bill also provides for goods to be forfeited when someone is convicted of illegal street trading. That is very important. It is the greatest deterrent to illegal traders, and I congratulate the Department and the Minister for including that power in the Bill. The power must, of course, be exercised in a balanced and a fair way, and it will do nothing to prevent a bona fide street trader from carrying out his trade properly under licence. However, when a trader violates that licence by contradicting its terms, such as trading outside the proper area — and this applies too to those who trade without a licence — goods can be seized and even forfeited. That power alone will drive illegal traders out of our city streets and towns. Councils have long been hoping for this, and so I welcome the Bill. The obligation on every trader to carry on his person a strictly binding licence, complete with his photograph, will bring greater discipline to street trading throughout Northern Ireland.
I worry about the passage of the Bill — I hope that it will be passed fairly quickly, but the timetable is governed by the rules of the House. However, let us hope that the terms of the Bill can be enacted and come into effect before Christmas. I hope so, because it is at Christmas time that illegal and unregulated street trading proliferates, especially in town and city centres. I hope the Minister can ensure that the legislation is enacted before the start of the Christmas season and so prevent the mischief that has characterised recent Christmases. I hope too that the House will broadly support the view that the legislation should be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the introduction of legislation to regulate street trading. District councils will be able to set fees to recover costs, and so on. The attractive element of the matter is that proper street trading can help to recreate a critical mass of custom in town centres. However, the Minister will be aware that one of the main concerns of permanent traders is the rates disparity. Would it be within the competence of local councils to include comparative figures for fees to redress the balance between the permanent traders and the street traders?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage in a relatively short time. When I held the position that Mr Morrow now occupies, I had the pleasure of bringing the legislative provisions in detail to the Committee for Social Development. When I took office as Minister, one of my priorities was to cut through the delays on street trading to get the legislation onto the statute book as quickly as possible. Mr Maginness mentioned the need to try to get the various stages through the House as quickly as possible, and I echo that. We should try to have legislation passed and powers in place before the onset of the Christmas period when, especially in Belfast city centre, there are problems with street traders.
I want to congratulate the Minister for the way in which he has proceeded with this Bill. He and other Members have been determined to achieve results. The current legislation is out of date. It is 70 years since it was revised, and today’s street trading practices are very different from what they were decades ago. As it stands, the legislation is totally ineffective. It does not give council officers the necessary powers to deal with the problem. I welcome the fact that we intend to introduce a power to seize goods that is the only remedy that will make a difference to the problem of illegal street trading.
I have had many complaints from mothers with young children in prams, from people with disabilities and from the elderly, who are all concerned about the way in which street traders operate on the footpaths in Belfast city centre. I have also had complaints from consumers who have bought goods from these stalls — goods which turned out to be totally different from what they were supposed to be and for which those consumers have no effective comeback or redress. Belfast City Council — other Members of the House are also members of the council — is very keen to get this legislation in place. Other councils are also affected, but it is a particular problem in Belfast.
I am not saying that all street trading is bad per se. There is no doubt that street trading brings a certain amount of colour and vibrancy to cities and towns both in this country and abroad. The problem comes when it is unregulated. Then, it creates the worst possible impression and image, and street traders act illegally by selling goods that are not of a proper standard. That brings the environment and ethos of the city of Belfast into the depths. The Bill will go a long way towards recovering that position.
Some of the legislation that has been tabled in the Assembly heretofore has been necessary, some of it has been technical, and some of it has dealt with important issues. This is an issue on which the Assembly, if it passes the Bill, will be seen to have made a real difference to people’s lives and to how they go about their business in Belfast city centre in the run-up to Christmas.
I commend the Bill and hope that it will receive a speedy passage.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I wish to echo the words of Mr Alban Maginness, who, praised the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I am sure that the House will notice the seamless way in which the decision made by the previous Minister has been carried through by the present Minister. Despite all the criticisms of the Democratic Unionist Party’s policy regarding the rotation of Ministers, there has been no disadvantage to the people of Northern Ireland. In fact, direct rule Ministers pondered this legislation for five years. Despite what our opponents have said about the way the Department for Social Development has been handled, the Bill has been brought forward in a fraction of the time by the Ministers appointed by the Democratic Unionist Party. I make that point because I am glad to see that even our opponents have praised us for doing the work that we said we would do: while opposing the worst aspects of the agreement, we work at representing the people of Northern Ireland.
My second point relates to the absence of the Chairperson of the Committee responsible for bringing this legislation forward. I have noted his comments over the past week about the performance of the Minister for Social Development. In meetings of Belfast City Council, and on other occasions, I have heard him talk about the need for the Bill, and yet we are discussing it —

Mr Ivan Davis: The Chairperson of the Committee has an urgent dental appointment.

Mr Sammy Wilson: He certainly did not look too swollen when I saw him at nine o’clock this morning. What is really important is not the teeth of the Chairperson but the teeth of the legislation, which gets to grips with the issue of street trading.
It is significant that the Chairperson has found an adequate deputy in the Sinn Féin Deputy Chairperson. Given the relationship between himself and Sinn Féin to which the First Minister admitted this morning, it is not unusual to find Ulster Unionists asking Sinn Féin to deputise for them when it comes to speaking on certain matters.
The Minister might clarify certain issues for me. Like other Members, I accept that street trading can add vibrancy to town centres. Indeed, we ought to seek such trading in a properly regulated form. However, there are a number of other issues arising from the Bill. The issues may be adequately covered, but perhaps we should strengthen the legislation.
Car boot sales are regarded as street trading and many constituents and constituency organisations benefit from them. I notice that the Bill deals with trading under the auspices of charitable organisations. However, it points out that trading must not be for individual profit. In many car boot sales, individuals profit while organisations make money from selling pitches. Does the Bill cover that aspect, or do we need to be more specific? I am sure that organisations such as churches, scout groups, residents’ associations, and community groups would not be very happy if the work that they do to raise funds through car boot sales were covered by this legislation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
Mr Dodds mentioned my next concern. People trading on the street quite often break employment regulations and those relating to the standard of goods offered. Clause 9 of the Bill covers discretionary grounds for refusing an application. In Belfast, we see situations in which a street trader takes out a number of licences and has people under the age of 16 running stalls for him. I understand that there may be occasions — perhaps at family stalls — when parents go for something to eat, leaving a child in charge for a short period. We must make allowance for that. Under the discretionary grounds for refusing an application, should there not be a provision whereby a person’s habitual use of child labour might constitute grounds for the refusal of a future licence? There is also the question of those who have been found guilty of selling goods that do not meet health and safety or consumer protection standards. Are those not also grounds for refusal?
Alban Maginness raised my last issue — the forfeiture or seizure of goods. That is the bite in the Bill. My attention was drawn to the wording of the relevant clause, which may simply fulfil the legal requirements. Where an authorising officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting thata person has committed an offence, he may seize an article or things being offered which may be used as evidence. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the officer is required to seize everything offered, for it is then that the legislation would have teeth. If he is simply required to seize a sample to show what has been on offer, the trader can be back on the ground the next day.
Would it be a reasonable defence against such legislation for someone to say in court that he had been put out of his legitimate business after having all his goods seized rather than an exemplary item for legal use? If the legislation is to have real teeth, then the officer must be able to seize all the goods. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether that is the Bill’s import.
I am aware that many of these issues will be raised in Committee, and I know that the Social Development Committee intends to look closely at the Bill. However, those are some of the issues that I should like to see flagged up for a response from the Minister.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate. Many useful comments have been made about the general principles of the Bill, which will provide a more structured and working scheme that will be to the benefit of all parties.
Prospective traders will better understand the types of trading covered by the Bill. Where trading is permitted in a district council area, the councils will have clear guidelines and an effective deterrent that will enable them to deal with those who trade without a licence. Ultimately, the success of the scheme will depend on its practical operation, but the end results should benefit the general public. They will see street trading regulated in a way that allows them to go about their daily business without undue obstruction.
I will now try to deal with the points made and raised by individual Members. Mr Maginness and Mr Dodds asked when and how the Bill would come into operation. It will come into operation by means of an Order made by the Department for Social Development. That is likely to be four months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give the district councils adequate time to prepare for the new procedures that they requested. It is unlikely that Royal Assent will be granted before Christmas.
Mr Hussey asked why district councils are prevented from charging a figure more closely related to the disparity in the rates. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate street trading; it is not a financial measure aimed at income generation. The provisions for the setting of fees and charges limit district councils to recouping the costs of administering and enforcing the system, which is only right and proper. Within those limits they may charge what they wish, and street trading-stalls may be liable for rates.
I agree with Mr Dodds on the ineffectiveness of the present legislation, which is some 70 years old and not in line with the requirements of modern society.
Mr Wilson raised a number of questions. He had concerns about the Bill’s preventing licence holders from employing young people, especially in the summer holidays. The relevant provisions of the Bill clarify the law on children by making it clear that while a licence holder may employ assistants, the provisions of article 135(4) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 prevent the licence holder from engaging children. Assistants must be over the legal school-leaving age, and any offence in this regard would be under the Children Order.
Mr Wilson also asked why car boot sales are not exempt from the requirement to have a street trading licence, especially those run by bodies such as churches and scout groups. It is anticipated that most private car boot sales will not require a licence — not because they are exempt but because the trading does not take place in a street, as defined in the Bill. Provided that the activity takes place in an area that is separated from a road or footpath by a wall or fence, the question of a street trading licence will not arise.
Mr Wilson also raised the point of whether district councils or the police can seize anything they wish from an illegal street trader. Items may be seized only if they are to be used as evidence in court proceedings or are the subject of a forfeiture application in court. If an unauthorised council officer or a police officer seizes items unlawfully, the court may award compensation for the loss or deterioration of those items. Any item may be seized.
Mr Wilson underlined the exclusion from the Bill of issues such as health and safety. Many important issues affect our streets, but they are not exclusive to street trading. The new street trading legislation cannot be used to cure the ills of other legislation. Concerns about the suitability of any street for trading can be addressed when a council is considering if that street should be so designated.
I trust I have covered all the points that were raised by Members. If I have missed anything, a reply will be given later.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Street Trading Bill (NIA 2/00) be agreed.
The sitting was suspended at 1.05 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Speaker, have you received any notice of a personal statement from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to apologise for not being present, for disrupting the business of the House and for allowing the Bill that she was supposed to be presenting to be put back because of her inexplicable absence?

Mr Speaker: If any Member is not here for a piece of business which requires his or her presence — whether a Bill, a motion or a question — it falls, but it may come forward later for consideration by the Business Committee. That is the position.
The answer to the Member’s question is that I have not received any communication in respect of this matter.

Mr Peter Robinson: Are you saying that not only have you not received any request from the Minister to make a personal statement by way of apology to the Assembly, but you have not received any explanation of her absence either?

Mr Speaker: I have been occupied with visitors to the Assembly, as several Members will know, and I cannot say whether there has been an attempt to get a message to me.

Mr John Dallat: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you take comfort from the fact that the DUP now wants Sinn Féin in the Assembly?

Mr Speaker: I am at a loss as to what the point of order is. We should allow the FirstMinister and the Deputy First Minister to proceed with their questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

First minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Question2, standing in the name of MrJoeByrne, has been withdrawn, and I understand that the Member in whose name question5 stands is not able to be here and will receive a written response.

Civic Forum

Mrs Eileen Bell: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they will confirm that the first meeting of the Civic Forum has taken place and to detail plans for future meetings.
(AQO 167/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am pleased to confirm that the first meeting of the Civic Forum took place on Monday 9October in the BT Studio in the Waterfront Hall. No date has been set for the next meeting, but the Forum expects to meet in plenary session in December. The location of further meetings of the Forum will be a matter for members of the Forum. Consideration will be given to holding future meetings in venues across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I attended the first meeting and found it very worthwhile. Does the FirstMinister agree that, given the interest of the general public in this very important Forum, communcation and information should be of the highest quality?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I do indeed agree that we want to ensure that the highest quality information is available. The Member will have noticed the extent of the publicity for the first meeting and I am sure that the public interest reflected by that will be sustained. The Deputy First Minister, and I and the Assembly as a whole must consider how best to make use of the Civic Forum. It will be a channel for information from some sectors of civil society and for views to be expressed. Collectively, we have to consider the value that we put upon the deliberations of the Forum.

Ms Jane Morrice: Can the First Minister explain what his plans are for how the Assembly should co-operate with the Civic Forum? Also, does he intend to have a consultative procedure to allow us to examine ways to co-operate with the Civic Forum?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am not in a position to answer that, because no definitive proposals have yet emerged. It might be unwise of me simply to muse out loud on the matter. Establishing the Forum within six months of devolution represents a tremendous effort by the office and the staff involved. The office did remarkably well to achieve that objective.
As the Member said, we have to consider how best to make use of the Forum. We want to hear the views of Forum members and of Assembly Members. We do not have a pre-prepared set of ideas. There are no arrangements that we wish to impose upon the Forum. We want to think the matter through. Because of that, I will resist the temptation to think out loud.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the First Minister not agree that he has already used the Civic Forum to reward those to whom he wishes to give patronage — to appoint and reward failed party candidates, to reward complaining loyalist paramilitary spokesmen and to keep the IRA quiet by nominating a convicted IRA terrorist?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am at a loss to understand that last point. The Member knows that appointments to the Civic Forum were made by a range of organisations from a variety of sectors in civic society. Consortia were formed by interested bodies, and they made 54 of the appointments. The Deputy First Minister and I made six appointments in total. We made it absolutely clear that three were nominated by the Deputy First Minister and three were nominated by myself.
To deal with the Member’s first comments, which were of a personal nature, I think that the persons concerned will have every reason to feel aggrieved that they have been referred to in those terms in this Assembly. I reject that description.

Cross-Departmental Issues

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, further to their reply on 18 September, what action has been taken on plans to establish Executive sub-committees on cross- departmental issues.
(AQO 154/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is entirely a matter for the Executive to decide how their business will be conducted. Sub-committees are neither provided for, nor precluded, by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Executive is currently considering how best to address cross-departmental issues, particularly in the context of the Programme for Government. The Executive will determine the role and remit of any sub-committees and retain overall responsibility for all decisions taken.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the sooner Executive sub-committees are established the better? We might have sub-committees involving the Department of Health and the Department for Social Development, or the Department for Regional Development, which is responsible for the ‘Shaping Our Future’ document, and the Department of the Environment, which is presently drawing up area plans.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member will be aware that I do not want to anticipate any decisions made by the Executive on this matter. I agree with him on the value of dealing with cross-cutting issues. There are many cross-cutting issues, and I believe that the decisions that the Executive will make will allow such issues to be dealt with whatever structures are created.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the non-appearance of the Minister for Social Development at the inter-ministerial meeting on drugs is a deplorable derogation of responsibility? Can he assure Members that the Executive will press ahead and establish good government despite the DUP?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I assure the Member that we will do everything in our power to ensure good government. In relation to the substance of his question, I state that since 2 September 1999 DUP Ministers have not attended meetings, but they have offered views on papers circulated to them.
The DUP Ministers have submitted memoranda to the Executive Committee on a wide range of topics, but have refused to attend Executive meetings to discuss issues arising, even on matters of public interest. The Minister for Regional Development did not attend the Executive meeting that discussed the outbreak of cryptosporidium. The Minister for Social Development refused to attend the first meeting of the ministerial group on drugs, which was held last week. That refusal to participate in meetings addressing matters of such vital significance to everybody in Northern Ireland, especially parents, children and young people, reflects the fact that some Ministers seem to think that playing party politics is more important than tackling the real problems facing society.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am interested in Mr McCarthy’s proposal. Is the Deputy First Minister prepared to guarantee that a Minister taking part in a sub-committee would actually turn up, unlike a Minister who did not do so this morning in the House?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I anticipate that whatever structures the Executive decides upon for handling cross-cutting issues, it will be a very important part of the deliberations of the Executive. We would like to see all Ministers attending not just the Executive but any sub-committees that may be formed by the Executive. I include all of us in that, and it is crucially important that issues are dealt with in a way that is both unified and creative, especially those cross-cutting issues which go right across the 10 Departments.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Deputy First Minister to lecture anyone in this House about boycotting or not attending meetings when he has almost daily been pontificating about the refusal of his party to attend police structures if it does not get its way in the Police Bill?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is straying well wide of Executive sub-committees, and he is aware of it. The question is out of order.

Major Accident Hazards Directive

Mr Roy Beggs: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister if they have made any representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding that country’s non-implementation of obligations under the Major Accident Hazards Directive (96/82/EC).
(AQO 157/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: No representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning that country’s non-implementation of obligations under the Major Accident Hazards Directive (96/82/EC). We understand that the necessary regulations to implement the directive with regard to the Republic of Ireland are expected to be made by the end of October 2000. The non-implementation of EC directives by member states is a matter for the European Commission to pursue under the infraction procedures established by article 226 of the EC Treaty.
It is our understanding that the Republic of Ireland authorities consider that within their jurisdiction there are no major accident hazard sites that have the potential to give rise to cross-border effects, and we have no information to the contrary.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the First Minister agree that the failure to adopt this could possibly endanger both the environments and the citizens of Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is essential that our own regional central emergency planning unit should continue to receive our support? Will he suggest to the Government of the Irish Republic that they create a similar body? I understand that they do not have such a body.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member has referred to our central emergency planning unit. Of course, we do have such a unit. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland are aware of its role and function, and they liaise regularly with it to exchange and share information and best practice in the field of emergency planning. However, it is entirely a matter for them to decide what arrangements they should make for emergency planning in their own jurisdiction.
Of course, hazards that could have cross-border effects are a matter of real concern to us. However, on the information available to us, it does not look as if there are any such hazards.

Ministers: Pledge of Office

Mr David McClarty: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action has been taken to ensure that all Ministers in the Executive Committee are adhering to their Pledge of Office as defined in the Agreement of 10 April 1998, Strand One, Annex A.
(AQO 171/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Ministers are required by section 18(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to affirm the Pledge of Office set out in the Belfast Agreement before taking up office. The Executive Committee has adopted a ministerial code which provides guidance for Ministers on their relationship with the Executive Committee and on the conduct of their ministerial duties. Compliance with the code promotes and underpins ministerial adherence to many elements of the Pledge of Office. However, it is ultimately a matter for the Assembly to decide whether there has been such a breach of the Pledge of Office as to resolve to exclude a Minister or a political party from office.

Mr David McClarty: Does the First Minister agree that the Republican movement’s failure to decommission its weapons brings into question the adherence of Sinn Féin Ministers to section (b) of the Pledge of Office? Does he also agree that the only reason that the Ulster Unionist Party was prepared to restore devolution this year was on the basis of the IRA’s promise in May to put its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use? Therefore, is it not outrageous that the Republican movement has still not kept this promise some five months later?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is correct in that the Pledge of Office includes a
"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
The individuals who take that pledge do so on the basis of being the representatives of their party and, indeed, of the movement that brought them to where they are now. The Member is also correct in saying that the promises made by the Republican movement in May were critical to the restoration of devolution. It is a disappointment to us to find, five months after the event, that the promise to initiate a process that would put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, and on that basis to engage with the de Chastelain Commission, has yet to be redeemed.

Mr John Dallat: Does the First Minister agree that all Ministers must comply with the Pledge of Office, particularly Annex A(a) and (e), which require Ministers to discharge all duties of office and to operate within the framework of the Programme for Government when it is approved? What are the First Minister’s views on the DUP’s non-compliance?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We have the curious situation of people who hold ministerial office and discharge that office in virtually all respects in relation to their ministerial functions, what they do in their offices and the representations they make with their Colleagues. They do everything that is connected with that office except meet their Colleagues and discuss matters with them from time to time. That is not a full adherence of the Pledge of Office.
However, the Administration is functioning with regard to all its Departments. The only people who are harmed by the non-participation in some Committees of DUP Ministers are those DUP Ministers, who consequently deprive themselves of the opportunity to contribute to collective decision making. We are determined that this Administration should proceed and that the public service should be protected. If some Members are too shy to come and speak to their Colleagues that is their own lookout.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the First Minister explain why he is simply disappointed at Sinn Féin’s non-compliance with its Pledge of Office, given that IRA/Sinn Féin Members and their organisation continue to be involved in gun-running from the United States of America and continue to be involved in paramilitary attacks? At the weekend there was the sanctioning of a murder by the Provisional IRA. Surely this, more than anything else, is a breach of the Pledge of Office. Instead of expressing disappointment, what sanctions is he going to put on the Provisional IRA and its Ministers in this Government?

Rt Hon David Trimble: When I used the term "disappointment" I was avoiding the hyperbole, exaggeration and bombast which characterise the DUP. Our disappointment on this matter is extremely serious, and the Republican movement is aware of that. However, I must deprecate the conduct of the Member who asked that question in another matter too.
There was, indeed, a very regrettable murder this weekend, and some people are attributing it to mainstream Republicans. At the moment, the Chief Constable says that he cannot rule out the involvement of any organisation or come to any conclusion about who was involved. I hope that the Chief Constable will soon be able to tell us whom the police believe to be responsible for that and other murders. Many violent incidents have occurred, and we need to know the police’s assessment, but we should not jump to one conclusion rather than another, because it serves the purposes of a particular political party. We need a balanced view from the Chief Constable in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The First Minister knows — and the majority of people in the community believe — that the murder of JosephO’Connor at the weekend was carried out by the Provisional IRA. If the Chief Constable confirms that, will the First Minister give an undertaking that he will remove Sinn Féin representatives from the Executive? Failing that, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will do the honourable and decent thing and lead his party out of the Executive? Even his bible — the Belfast Agreement — makes it clear that Sinn Féin Members are in breach of section (b) of the Pledge of Office. It clearly states that they must have a
"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
No one believes for one moment that Mr Adams, MrMcGuinness and the other SinnFéin Members have any commitment to that pledge.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is Question Time; it is not an opportunity for speeches.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member can talk about his beliefs and the beliefs of others but he is not in a position to say anything about what I know, other than what he hears from me. He does not know what I know. That is a simple point about the loose use of language by the Member.
The Member can rely on my Colleagues and me to do the decent and honourable thing for society in NorthernIreland, particularly the 71% who want to see the process working. We will pursue our objective of achieving devolution and decommissioning. The Member is quick to urge other people to walk out but is himself slow to move. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Members know that I do not take points of order during Question Time. I will take them at the end.

Mr Peter Robinson: How many guns must the IRA attempt to bring into the Province and how many people must be killed before the First Minister will exclude Sinn Féin from Government?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Many assumptions have been made in that statement and old history has been raked up. With regard to what my party will decide in the coming weeks and months, I refer the Member to my party conference speech, in which I touched on those matters.

OFMDFM: Special Advisers

Mr David Ford: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they can confirm that all those employed in their Office as Special Advisers are complying with their terms and conditions of employment.
(AQO 147/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: We are satisfied that all those employed as Special Advisers in the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister are complying with their terms and conditions of employment.

Mr David Ford: I fear that the Deputy First Minister is not well informed as to the activities of some Special Advisers. It may be difficult for him to answer this supplementary question, which illustrates one of the unsatisfactory features of putting questions jointly to the Ministers. Could he ask his Colleague to write to me and explain how someone employed as a Special Adviser in the Office of the First Minister can act as a press officer to David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, accompany other Ulster Unionists to news conferences, and act as a spin doctor for the party, while supposedly being a civil servant?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I have no doubt about the identity of the person to whom the Member is referring, but I want to put it on the record that, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any Special Adviser has broken his or her terms of employment. Let me put on record what those terms are, and actually say what a Special Adviser may or may not do.
In terms of fulfilling his obligations, a Special Adviser may attend the Minister’s party functions and maintain contact with party members, but not speak publicly at a party conference. He may take part in policy reviews organised by the party. He may undertake all forms of local political activity — that is, in connection with local authorities, local councils — but not activities in support of national politics (and that includes the Assembly). He may provide specialist or political advice to his Minister during an election campaign.
A Special Adviser may not take part in what is termed national political activity — Assembly, Westminster or European activity, as opposed to local government. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: He may not speak in public matters of national political controversy or express views on such matters in letters to the press or in books, articles or leaflets. He may not be announced publicly as a candidate or a prospective candidate for the Assembly, Parliament or the European Parliament. He may not canvass on behalf of a candidate for the Assembly, Parliament or the European Parliament or on behalf of a political party or otherwise take part actively in an election campaign other than by giving advice to the Minister. Those are the dos and don’ts in relation to Special Advisers, and I would be very keen to offer to deal with any specifics or any definite points that the Assemblyman or anyone else would like to raise on the matter.

Mr Arthur Doherty: The Deputy First Minister can be assured that his initiative of appointing Special Advisers is widely recognised as a very worthwhile innovation. However, can we be assured that the DUP tendency for revolving Ministers, accompanied by revolving DUP Special Advisers, will not be a tax burden and will not be at tax payers’ expense?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for the question. Special Advisers have been of great importance and great significance in terms of the Office of First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I know they have been very helpful to other Ministers as well.
In relation to the specific point he raises, the model contract between Departments and Special Advisers has been reviewed to reflect the possibility that some advisers may be employed for relatively short periods of time.
The current model contract provides that where an adviser resigns within six months of the commencement of his employment to participate in elections, he is entitled to one month’s severance pay only. It has been decided to extend this principle so that if an adviser’s employment terminates within six months of appointment for any reason he is entitled to one month’s severance pay only. This change applies to contracts entered into from 4 October 2000. It cannot be applied retrospectively to existing contracts.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Deputy First Minister wants specifics. Can he tell us specifically if it is compatible for a civil servant or Special Adviser, namely Mr King —

Mr David Ford: The Member has got the wrong one.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I have not. This is a different one — so there is more than one doing it.
Is it compatible for a civil servant or Special Adviser, namely Mr King, to take part in an election campaign by using a platform piece in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ to blatantly electioneer for his party to such an extent that the newspaper had to give another political party the right to reply? Is that taking part in elections? If so, will the Deputy First Minister condemn that? Will he condemn it as an abuse of the role of that civil servant, and will he indicate to us what disciplinary action should be taken to sanction that person?
I note that the First Minister is giggling and going quite red, but after the South Antrim by-election he was nearly crying.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is a matter of record that Mr King is not employed as a Special Adviser in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I can assure the Member that Mr King is not employed as a Special Adviser by the First Minister, and I can doubly assure him that he is not employed by me.
I fully agree with the Member’s second point. It would not be compatible for any Special Adviser to do what the Member described: write articles on behalf of one political party or another, or to otherwise campaign in an election. I would like to be specific on that, because I know it is a very sensitive issue. I am glad to be utterly specific in relation to the Assemblyman’s question.

Human Rights Act 1998

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what preparation has been made by the devolved Administration for implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 following its introduction on 2 October 2000.
(AQO172/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Northern Ireland Administration has been required to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 since the original date of devolution. Steps have been taken to prepare for implementation on a range of matters.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What areas of vulnerability have been identified, particularly in the area of planning?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We have endeavoured to examine a range of matters. We have asked all Departments to review their legislation, policies and procedures and organisational arrangements. Where existing arrangements are shown to be vulnerable to challenge we are considering making changes. There are areas of concern on a range of planning matters. In a recent Scottish case, County Properties Limited successfully challenged the planning procedures of the Scottish Ministers under Article 6 of the Convention. However, it should be noted that the case is the subject of an appeal.
Notwithstanding that, there are a number of areas in the broad planning field, including things like compulsory acquisition, where there are areas of concern. We are looking at those areas and consulting with the Administrations in Wales and in Scotland, and with Whitehall, because some of the problems are common and the legislation is similar in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is desirable to have a common response to the problems that have been identified.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the First Minister, at an early opportunity, to correct a misleading statement he made to the House on Monday 9 October, when he said that he, or his office, had not contacted the office of Mr Sandy Berger? I wonder if he would like to —

Mr Speaker: Order. First of all, Members should be more careful about raising questions regarding Ministers misleading the House, and ought to read their Erskine May in that regard. It would be even better if they were in the Chamber and able to hear the matter being addressed. I am afraid that the Member asking the question was obviously not in the Chamber when a personal statement on the matter was made earlier today. I recommend that he read not only Erskine May but also today’s Hansard when it is published tomorrow.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Regional development

Planning: Roads

Mr Sammy Wilson: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development if a time limit is placed on the Roads Service to respond to requests for views on planning applications being considered by the Department of the Environment Planning Service.
(AQO 161/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Under the current service-level agreement with the Department of Environment Planning Service, my Department’s Roads Service aims to achieve a 90% return of consultation forms relating to minor planning applications within 15 working days of receipt from the Planning Service; a 75% return of consultation forms relating to major planning applications within 15 working days of receipt from the Planning Service; and a 90% return of consultation forms relating to major planning applications within 30 working days of receipt from the Planning Service.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Can the Minister tell us whether those targets are being met? The impression that one gets from the present planning system for Belfast is that those targets are missed by a wide margin. Within the past two weeks, we have found that one third of the planning applications due to come to Belfast City Council could not be brought forward because the Roads Service had not responded. One application relating to East Belfast has been delayed for more than three months, in the absence of a Roads Service response.

Mr Gregory Campbell: In the first quarter of the year, for target number one, the Roads Service’s success rate was 76%, compared with the target figure of 90% . Target number two was 75%, against which the service achieved 73%. For target three, where the target was 90% of major applications within 30 days, the performance has been 86%. Roads Service performance has not reached the levels that I would have liked, in relation to target one. Performance in the eastern division falls below the target. The hon Member for East Belfast referred to the Belfast area, which, of course, falls within the eastern division.
A number of factors have contributed to the performance. First, there has been a significant increase in planning applications, including a 17% increase in the past three years. In 1999-2000, there were 15,000 planning applications from the Department of the Environment Planning Service. Three thousand eight hundred of those were for the eastern division, which includes Belfast City Council area. Additional staff have been deployed in the eastern division to address the current backlog of work.
The application of the new design guide for roads in new developments has slowed the private streets determination process, leading to an additional backlog. My predecessor established a joint Planning Service and Roads Service working group to examine the issues and identify how the planning process can be improved. That working group is due to report to the joint Planning Service directorate before the end of this calendar year. I am hopeful that that will speed up the clearing of the backlog.

Transport

Mr James Leslie: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the number of meetings he has had with Ministers with responsibility for transport at national, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly level.
(AQO 151/00)

Mr Joe Byrne: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail what proposals he will submit to the North/South Ministerial Council, particularly in relation to transport.
(AQO 159/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 7 together.
I was due to meet Lord Macdonald, the Minister for Transport, in Manchester last month. Unfortunately, although I was present, he was unable to fulfill the engagement, due to pressures on the Government that arose from the fuel cost protests. I have arranged a meeting with the Scottish Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, which is scheduled to take place next month. It is, in fact, a rescheduled meeting. My predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson, had arranged the meeting, but it was postponed, due to the suspension of the Assembly.
In addition to that, my officials have regular contact with their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as with those in the Scottish Executive. In fulfilling my responsibilities as Minister for Regional Development, I have no plans to submit proposals to the North/South Ministerial Council.
That is without prejudice to ensuring that my Department co-operates fully, on an ongoing basis, on matters of mutual interest between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, especially in relation to roads, public transport, spatial development and water and sewerage.

Mr James Leslie: Can the Minister tell us if it is his intention to attend meetings of the British/Irish Council, where transport matters relating to all four constituent parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are likely to be on the agenda in due course? Secondly, does he consider that to be the best forum for dealing with those cross-cutting themes?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am, of course, as my predecessor was, content to take the lead in taking forward a sectoral meeting on transport within the context of the British-Irish Council. However, the hon Member should know that the First and Deputy First Ministers, for their own reasons, decided to assume responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement regarding his willingness to get involved in developing the transport theme with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Coming from west Tyrone, where we have major problems in relation to roads, I encourage the Minister to get involved in putting forward proposals on transport — particularly road transport — with his Department and in collaboration with the Republic of Ireland. Roads in the border areas have never really had adequate funding.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will repeat what I have already said: my Department co-operates fully, on an ongoing basis, on matters of mutual interest between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, especially in relation to roads, public transport, spatial development, water and sewerage. That is the case and will continue to be the case.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree that it takes some nerve for an Ulster Unionist to ask this question, given that it was the First Minister who did his best to block discussions and consultation between him and his Welsh and Scottish counterparts?

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I said, it was the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who, for their own reasons, took responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council. That was a matter for them; they took that decision. I agree with the hon Member that it seems somewhat churlish that I am now asked about my responsibility for a matter that has already been dealt with by the leader of Mr Leslie’s party — the First Minister, Mr Trimble.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. An bhféadann an t Aire a insint domh an raibh cruinniú ar bith aige go dtí seo leis an Aire Comhshaoil sna sé chondae is fiche faoi chúrsaí taistil, nó an bhfuil sé de rún aige seo a dhéanamh roimh i bhfad?
Will the Minister detail any meetings he has had with Minister Noel Dempsey, who has responsibility for transport in the rest of Ireland? Is it his intention to have any such meetings in the near future?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I cannot pretend that I understood the first part of the question. I have already said that while carrying out and fulfilling my responsibilities as Minister for Regional Development, I have no plans to submit proposals to the North/South Ministerial Council. However, that will not preclude ongoing and continuous co-operation that my Department has, and will continue to have, with its counterpart in the Irish Republic on matters such as transport and roads.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I am glad to hear that the Minister is going to meet his Scottish counterpart next month. Will he take into account the needs of my constituency in East Antrim? Will he address those needs jointly with the Scottish Minister to try and upgrade our roads, the A8 (the Larne line) and the A75 on the Scottish side, as part of the trans-European network? That upgrade is critical to the people of Northern Ireland who are trying to get their goods to the UK, which is our major trading partner.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have responded previously to another Member from East Antrim on that precise point. I am very conscious of the roads Mr O’Connor referred to in East Antrim and the A75. When I meet Sarah Boyack I intend to raise that issue and other relevant issues pertaining to the Northern Ireland travelling public as they progress through Scotland, particularly by the Belfast/Larne to Stranraer sea route.

Traffic Congestion (Greater Belfast)

Mr Roy Beggs: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline what plans he has to develop further facilities to reduce traffic congestion in the Greater Belfast area.
(AQO 158/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: My Department aims to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion in the Greater Belfast area by pursuing an integrated transport strategy which will make the best use of the existing road network and develop and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport. In this context, the Department is currently progressing a number of road improvement schemes, together with measures in support of public transport, cycling and walking. At a strategic level, work on the preparation of a 10-year Belfast transport plan is due to commence early next year.
However, I must reiterate my previous concerns about the current level of funding for both road and public transport. The current level will not overcome existing deficiencies in the transport infrastructure and deal with future growth in traffic. Increasing congestion is inevitable unless significant new investment is made.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that park-and-ride facilities will play a vital role in preventing gridlock in Belfast over the next decade, and can he advise my constituents when they can expect to learn of additional park-and-ride facilities in East Antrim?
Furthermore, is the Minister aware that this morning’s commuter train from Larne had to be taken out of service because of brake failure? Last week, a similar train had to be removed from service because of numerous door lock faults. When can we expect to hear of an upgrading of our rolling stock and the removal of the things that prevent people from using the rail network?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member raises a number of matters, some of which are specific to his constituency. I will respond in writing to him, particularly in relation to the incident which he says occurred today. I will refer to a number of measures that we are currently progressing.
A number of quality bus corridors will be introduced on the main radial routes into Belfast. There are proposals for bus-related park-and-ride facilities. There is also the introduction of bus priority facilities at traffic signals throughout Belfast. There is also the implementation of measures to encourage walking and cycling. Those measures are to be introduced in the Greater Belfast area. I will respond to the Member in writing on the specific comments that he has made in relation to the East Antrim constituency.

Mr John Dallat: With regard to traffic congestion, which extends beyond the Greater Belfast area these days, can the Minister assure us that there is no truth in the rumour that there has been a slippage on the Toome bypass project, and that it will proceed as planned?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Toome bypass, which the Member will be familiar with, was progressed by my predecessor. Work is continuing on that bypass scheme, and when I have precise and specific details about its scheduling I will write to the hon Member to inform him of that.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Given that one of the key areas of congestion is the so-called southern approaches to the city, does the Minister agree that development of the so-called quality bus route on the Ormeau and Saintfield Roads offers a superior option to forcing an entirely new road through what is one of our few areas of green field in the city, Belvoir Forest?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Traffic congestion is not, of course, the exclusive preserve of Belfast, but it is particularly acute in the Greater Belfast area. It results from several factors — an increasing number of vehicles on the roads and an increase in usage of those vehicles. In the morning peak hour there are something like 32,000 cars travelling to work in the Greater Belfast area. Each week there are 500 additional licensed vehicles on the roads in Northern Ireland.
Large housing developments such as those constructed and planned in the Saintfield Road and Carryduff area — the southern approaches mentioned by Dr Birnie — also generate additional traffic. That tells us that there will be ongoing traffic congestion. Dr Birnie also referred to the quality bus route and a number of other issues that my Department is determined to proceed with. They are not the only answer to increasing congestion, but they are an answer.

Mr Jim Shannon: What plans are afoot to bring forward the much-delayed Comber bypass scheme? Comber is within the Greater Belfast area, and traffic congestion there has been particularly bad.

Mr Gregory Campbell: This is obviously a scheme in which the Member has an interest. My answer will be similar to that given to Mr Dallat in relation to the Toome bypass. I will write to the Member shortly with the specific details of where that scheme stands at the moment and the likelihood of its progression in the near future.

Mr Sean Neeson: What plans does the Minister have to end the serious congestion on the A2 Carrickfergus- Belfast road? This morning it took me three quarters of an hour to travel two miles. Furthermore, can he assure me and my constituents that the scheme, which has been to the fore for around 15 years, will be carried out as quickly as possible?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Mr Neeson raises an issue which both he and others in the Carrickfergus and East Antrim area have raised on a number of occasions in the past. This scheme is being considered by the Department for Regional Development, but is not at the point of being processed immediately. The Belfast transport plan will co-ordinate the implementation of transport initiatives within the Belfast area over a 10-year period, and the A2 will certainly feature in that plan. The plan will concentrate on proposals for the city centre and transport corridors, of which the A2 is one, and I hope there will be some progress on that in the immediate future in the Belfast transport plan.

Water Service: Pipe-Laying

Mr Mervyn Carrick: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline the position of landowners who permit pipe-laying on their property in the event of future privatisation of the Water Service.
(AQO 174/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: In accordance with Mr Peter Robinson’s statement on 15 December 1999, there are no plans to privatise Water Service. Landowners will continue to be paid for the loss of land use during the laying of new mains, but will not receive ongoing payments to cover the presence of the main on their land.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I thank the Minister for his reply and note the reaffirmation that there will be no privatisation of Water Service. However, is he aware that the introduction of public/private finance into the future infrastructure investment will, by its commercial content, change the financial basis of water provision? What steps will he take to safeguard the interests of the many landowners and farmers who will be affected by such a commercial operation which, at least for the private investor, has a clear profit-based motive? Will he also compensate the landowners and farmers affected?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Privatised water companies in England and Wales have greater flexibility in their negotiations with landowners. They do, on occasion, agree to pay rent. This practice is, however, avoided where possible, due to the long-term costs, which include administration. I am aware of the public’s concern about back-door privatisation, and I take the hon Member’s views very seriously. If, as a result, issues arise which directly impinge upon the Water Service, I will not only write to the Member, but alert the House as well.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister plan to introduce legislation to enable the Water Service to provide a waterline where landowners refuse permission?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I do not.

Waste-Water and Sewage Treatment (North Down)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will make a statement on a site for the North Down waste-water treatment works.
(AQO165/00)

Mr Alan McFarland: 9. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline his plans and timescale for the improvement of sewage treatment in the North Down area, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO150/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will take questions 5 and 9 together.
The Department’s Water Service commissioned consultants to carry out detailed environmental assessments of the two possible sites that were identified in an earlier appraisal study which was published in March 1999. These environmental assessments have been completed and submitted to the Water Service for consideration.
An additional assessment of the marine outfall pipe and storm-water management in the Bangor sewerage system is nearing completion. I visited Ards Borough Council in August to hear at first hand the views of councillors on the siting of the proposed new works. I received a report from the consultants who had been commissioned by the council. I was satisfied with the overall presentation of the report and have requested my Water Service officials to have follow-up meetings with the consultants to explore those recommendations fully. These meeting will take place in the near future.
I wish to consider all the issues very carefully, as I am aware of the concerns expressed by public representatives and members of the public about the siting of the proposed waste-water treatment works. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the siting of the works before the end of the year.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer, though I have a definite feeling of déjà vu. We have been discussing this question for the last four or five years in north Down and Ards. The Minister must be aware that his predecessor made a very similar comment some months ago. A decision must be reached as soon as possible, and if it is reached by the end of the year, I will be very pleased. Action on these reports must be taken as quickly as possible. People are being told every two or three months that the answer is coming, yet they do not get it.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I put great store on consultation with public representatives and the public at large. When I came into office I was faced with this decision as well as a request from the corporate body, Ards Borough Council, to meet me to discuss the waste-water treatment works.
It is important to have consultation and to ensure that the public knows the consequences of every decision. I therefore assured Ards Borough Council that my officials will liaise with its consultants on this issue. That meeting will take place within the next two and a half weeks, and I hope that I will be in a position to take a decision within the next 10 or 12 weeks.

Mr Alan McFarland: Does the Minister believe that it is right to pump raw sewage into Belfast Lough at the lovely area of Helen’s Bay? What steps will he take to treat this sewage so that people can swim in the bay?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I was not aware that the situation is so stark, but I will respond to the Member once my officials have checked the position at Helen’s Bay.
We want to have modern, state-of-the-art waste-water treatment works in a number of areas in Northern Ireland, and almost everybody I speak to expresses support for these. The problem arises when a proposed location for such treatment works is identified. Everyone wants them, but not in their backyards. The difficulty is in reaching a satisfactory conclusion by a process that is seen universally to be independent and equitable. That is what north Down needs and what I hope the people who live in and frequent Helen’s Bay will get when this process has been concluded in 10 or 12 weeks’ time.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Minister guarantee increased investment in these sewage works to reduce any detrimental impact of traffic, noise and smell, and guarantee the use of best practice examples from abroad, where works are sited underground or offshore, and where their impact is minimal?
Secondly, has he considered, or will he consider, the use of alternative, environmentally friendly engineering techniques, such as reed beds, for sewage works?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Yes, I am prepared to look at these measures. In recent weeks I visited Omagh District Council, where the location of a waste-water treatment works and its vehicle access are being considered in the light of the potential difficulties for local residents and visitors. I also visited Killyleagh, in County Down, where a similar difficulty has arisen. I am very conscious of those considerations, and I will look at anything that will alleviate the perceived difficulties of people living near a treatment works. I will take Ms Morrice’s concerns on board and write to her.

The Environment

Beach Cleanliness

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail plans to bring beach cleanliness in Northern Ireland into line with the requirements of European Union Directives.
(AQO152/00)

Mr Sam Foster: There are no EU Directives dealing explicitly with beach cleanliness. Responsibility for the cleanliness of public beaches lies with the district councils. However, my Department is responsible, through the Environment and Heritage Service, for monitoring the water quality at 16 beaches in Northern Ireland that fall within the scope of the European Community’s Bathing Water Directive. It then reports these results to the European Commission. All 16 beaches met the mandatory standards in the 1999 bathing season.
Eight of these beaches were awarded a European blue flag based on their 1999 performance. The Blue Flag criteria include beach cleanliness. I will shortly be able to make an announcement on how Northern Ireland’s 16 bathing waters performed in the 2000 bathing season against the standards of the Bathing Water Directive.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Of course we all want to see more blue flags. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department will bring forward proposals to ensure that all our beaches are brought up to a reasonable standard? All too often, when we need beaches to be cleaned, we find that no one Department has overall responsibility. In some cases a council, the National Trust, a Crown estate or even local landowners claim ownership, but rather than clean up the beaches concerned, they simply pass the buck. Can the Minister give us some encouragement?

Mr Sam Foster: We all want to see our coastal waters and beaches clean and tidy — that is a common objective. The Bathing Water Directive applies to waters which are used by a significant number of bathers. The main beaches were selected and identified to the European Commission. The annual survey for beach cleanliness, arranged by the Marine Conservation Society, involves examining the Northern Ireland coastline for litter. While the survey reveals that Northern Ireland could do better, the publicity it attracts ensures that this information is in the public domain and can be acted upon. Any concerns about the cleanliness or facilities of individual public beaches should be referred to the responsible district council. We are willing to participate, but the responsibility for clean beaches lies with district councils.

Mr David McClarty: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of East Londonderry there are four blue flag beaches, one of which is under threat because of the flow of sewage into the sea and thence to that beach? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take steps to rectify this?

Mr Sam Foster: I agree that the situation described is unacceptable. Under the terms of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, discharges to the sea from sewage treatment works in areas such as Portstewart will require secondary treatment by 31December 2000 to prevent such problems. My Department’s Environment and Heritage Service agency is currently awaiting details of the proposals from the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service for a secondary treatment works to serve the Coleraine, Castlerock, Portrush and Portstewart areas.

Abandoned Quarries

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail his policy on the refurbishment of abandoned quarries, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO145/00)

Mr Sam Foster: All quarries operating after 1973 require planning permission and have planning conditions attached for site restoration. Some quarries also have agreements to restore abandoned workings, under article 40, as a condition of the planning permission. In some circumstances my Department may be able to take enforcement action to have the sites restored in keeping with the planning permission granted.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the letter I received from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development last week about the proposed restoration of the Ballyheather sandpit in my constituency of West Tyrone. I petition the Minister to assure me that his Department will consider introducing a policy to restore all sandpits which have been left derelict for years throughout Northern Ireland. As well as desecrating fauna and flora, these derelict sites cause major dust problems to local residents and resemble a scene from the moon, full of craters and ridges.

Mr Sam Foster: May I emphasise again that, prior to 1973, quarrying in Northern Ireland was largely free from planning control. As a result, my Department has no powers to bring about the restoration of quarries abandoned before that date.
However, quarries operating after 1973 must do so with planning consent from my Department, including conditions for their restoration. We have no control over pre-1973 quarries.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister have records of quarry operations and their locations?

Mr Sam Foster: We have a responsibility, and we do have records of the location of every quarry throughout the Province. However, there are some holes and gaps in these. If they were pre-1973, we will not have a full list.

Planning (Countryside)

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will relax stringent planning regulations in the countryside.
(AQO 170/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Every planning application in the countryside is considered on its individual merits. I have had a personal involvement because I was a district councillor in Fermanagh for some 20 years. In 1999/2000, 86% of applications for new houses in the countryside were approved, a figure that represents more than 4,000 new dwellings. Any review of countryside planning policy is a matter for the Department for Regional Development, and my Department will help that Department in any such review.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he explain to the House what policies he intends to adopt on the relaxation of planning controls in green-belt areas and in areas of outstanding natural beauty to help farmers with diversification projects to enable them to realise full potential of their farm land? What consultation has there been involving his Department, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to ensure that these planning restrictions, and any cross-cutting implications, are examined thoroughly? Will the Minister put a scheme in place for "rural proofing" all planning matters so that farmers can get the optimum benefit from their land?

Mr Sam Foster: This is an important issue that I have a lot of sympathy with. Within green belts countryside- policy areas and those requiring access to protected routes, retiring farmers can get planning permission if they meet certain criteria set out in the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland. The main criteria are: the applicant last worked mainly as a farmer; the applicant has reached retirement age or is retiring due to ill health; the retirement dwelling is on a farm holding which must be viable and capable of supporting a farmer in full-time employment; the farm holding is being sold as a going concern and the existing farmhouse will continue to be used as the main farmhouse. Beyond these criteria — and we look at them regularly — planning permission will generally be granted where a site can absorb a new dwelling without any adverse impact on the surrounding countryside. I am aware of people’s concerns and I know it is a difficult time for the farming community. However, there has to be a balance and, as I have already said, 4,000 new dwellings were approved in the countryside in 1999-2000.

Mr George Savage: Can the Minister give me an assurance that priority in planning decisions will be given to those people who have lived in rural areas for generations, and does he accept that if we are to sustain the rural community we must give priority and pay particular attention to the needs of that community?

Mr Sam Foster: We are sympathetic to the difficulties of the farming community. It is a difficult situation. Perhaps I missed an opportunity with MrPaisley’s question to say that we do liaise with the respective Departments on planning issues. The designations referred to have to be controlled strictly and supervised carefully.
However, we recognise that there will be circumstances in which new dwellings are justified for residential development.
Responsibility for strategic planning policy was passed to the Department for Regional Development on devolution, and although my Department will assist the Department for Regional Development in any review of strategic rural policy, the onus does not rest with us. I support the current policy of the Department for Regional Development to achieve a balance between protecting the countryside and maintaining a vibrant rural community.

Mr John Dallat: Will the Minister use his vast experience in rural matters to encourage a greater inter-agency approach among the different Departments? Sometimes the Planning Service agrees with something while the Roads Service objects, or LEDU is involved and is in conflict with the Planning Service. I am sure that the Minister understands precisely what I mean. Will he assure the House that he will encourage more co-operation on this serious issue which affects so many people in Northern Ireland?

Mr Sam Foster: I accept that this is a serious issue for the rural community. I can assure the House that we co-operate, co-ordinate and liaise with all Departments, and we examine all situations to see what we can do, but we are involved in a fine balancing act.
As a poacher turned gamekeeper, I realise that this is not particularly easy. We follow planning policies, and assessments are carried out in considerable depth. Nothing is decided without much forethought. We do what we can and where we can, but we must also consider the protection of the countryside.

Mr Jim Shannon: I recognise that the Minister was a councillor for many years. Nevertheless, changes to the planning regulations are necessary. Specifically, will the Minister consider a change in the regulations for children wishing to restart farm businesses which failed through the ill health of one or both of their parents? I know of a specific case where 15 to 20 years passed between the owner’s retirement because of ill health and his son or daughter’s decision to take over. There is a need for the present regulations to be relaxed or even for a change in policy.

Mr Sam Foster: We have every sympathy with the situation that the Member has presented to us, but, as I said earlier, on devolution responsibility for strategic planning policy was passed to the Department for Regional Development. Responsibility for the review of strategic rural policy therefore rests with that Department, although my Department will liaise with it in any future discussions.
Many issues are important and dear to the farming community, and my sympathies are with it, but there is a fine balancing act to be considered.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister intend to liaise with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and other Departments when looking at the present inter-departmental regulations that control those who set up small rural diversification businesses? I am particularly concerned about the rules governing the primary production element of enterprises, which inhibit small businesses from moving to diversification under the LEADER or INTERREG programmes.

Mr Sam Foster: The Member comes from the same part of the country as I do, and we have similar thoughts on many development matters. However, the Department’s current policy cannot be varied. We work by policies; we make decisions according to them; and we cannot readily depart from them.
I have every sympathy with the idea of trying to achieve and maintain a vibrant rural community. I appreciate the point, and consideration has certainly been given to such issues. We shall definitely look into this matter, but I cannot make any rash promises that things will simply happen in the way we would all like to see things happen whenever we ask a question.

Listed Buildings

Mr Sean Neeson: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has plans to introduce spot-listing powers to allow for the accelerated listing of buildings in danger of being demolished.
(AQO 155/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Proposals to introduce powers enabling my Department to serve building preservation notices, which would offer similar protection to that provided by spot-listing procedures in Great Britain, were included in a consultation paper published in March 1999. I have secured a place in the current legislative programme for a Planning (Amendment) Bill, and I shall look at the inclusion of provisions relating to building preservation notices. Those provisions would enable my Department to serve building preservation notices which would have immediate effect, offering the same protection as if a building were listed. However, the proposals raise a number of difficult issues that require careful consideration, and these are being examined.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the initiative taken by the Department. Does the Minister agree with me that, had such legislation been in force, Ardmara, a very fine building in Bangor, would not have been destroyed? Does he agree that there are some very fine examples of the restoration and renovation of significant buildings in Belfast? I am thinking of the Corn Exchange in Corporation Street and the Customs House. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that the necessary powers are initiated, applying to inner-city Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Sam Foster: I am very much aware of the concern about the destruction and demolition of buildings of special interest. I am also aware of the prolonged nature of the current listing process, which makes the immediate protection of buildings at risk very difficult. The need to provide a mechanism to offer emergency protection to buildings considered to be at risk from demolition is acknowledged. I am considering the inclusion of possible provisions in the proposed Planning (Amendment) Bill.

Dr Ian Adamson: Can the Minister give us an assurance that, in spot listing, as with other listing powers, he will have careful regard not only to the architectural value of a building, but also to its cultural significance? I am thinking of the homes of prominent literary or even political figures.

Mr Sam Foster: I am extremely conscious of the situation and concerns, as I related earlier. I said that the intention would be to introduce building preservation notices, which would be served by my Department and would offer the same protection as if a building were listed.
Spot listing is a two-stage process. In Great Britain, local authorities carry it out, with subsequent confirmation being made at national level. In Northern Ireland, the current administrative structures mean that it is likely that my Department would have responsibility both for serving a building preservation notice and for subsequent confirmation. I am endeavouring to point out that matters are not quite so easy. Any decision not to confirm a spot listing would create possible grounds for compensation. It has been suggested that it would be difficult for my Department to perform both roles effectively, since it would become judge and jury. There may also be issues relating to the human rights of owners.
However, we know there are many zealous people concerned with the character of very fine buildings, not merely in the city of Belfast, but throughout the community. We have gathered that, and that is the reason we recently had five conservation areas designated in the city.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am very interested in the Minister’s reference to building preservation notices. In the Women’s Coalition we have called for what we described as a millennium preservation order to protect any building older than 100 years from demolition. I should like to have more details of these building preservation notices.
I would like to know several things. First, what criteria will govern the buildings that they preserve? Secondly, what penalties will be imposed on those who defy the notices? Thirdly, do they cover non-building aspects, such as trees?

Mr Sam Foster: We are still considering the different criteria and what the punishment might be for people breaking the regulation. Trees, at present, do not come into it, but that is something that we are also considering. I do not have the exact detail on all the aspects and criteria, but I assure the Member that I will send this to her when it is compiled.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Minister for his original answer. The Minister will be aware that listing does not always guarantee the saving of a building that is of high cultural and heritage value to the community. Neglect can sometimes mean that these buildings disappear. Does the Minister agree that the current moratorium on financial aid for listed buildings is a hindrance? Also, is the Minister aware of the deplorable state of the Stables Buildings in Sion Mills? If action is not taken soon this part of the culture and heritage of that small community will disappear.

Mr Sam Foster: The built heritage section of the Environment and Heritage Service is very much involved with historic buildings and their upkeep. I assure Mr Hussey that we are concerned that we had to impose a moratorium on grant aid for listed buildings. We have been trying to get some moneys for this department because we lost out over a number of years of direct rule. We had commitments worth up to £4 million in respect of grant aid for historic buildings, and the annual budget is some £1·7 million. We are very proud of our built heritage — we do not want to lose it.
We have been dealing with the Department of Finance and have tried — and failed recently — to get more moneys for the Environment and Heritage Service. I assure Members that we will continue to pursue this. People should understand that there are financial difficulties. The issue is a lack of resources and not a lack of will.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Out-of-Town Shopping Centres

Mr Roy Beggs: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will give consideration to introducing multi-stage planning criteria, as used elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to assess the need for additional out-of-town shopping centres.
AQO 156/00

Mr Sam Foster: My Department currently exercises its planning responsibilities for retail development in accordance with the provisions set out in Planning Policy Statement 5 — Retailing and Town Centres (PPS5). Any review of current planning policy in this area would be for the Department for Regional Development, though my Department will provide all possible professional assistance in any such review.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the more stringent sequential planning system outlined in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG06), which is applied in other parts of the United Kingdom, would simplify the planning system in Northern Ireland by enabling the early elimination of some out-of-town planning applications, such as D5? Does he agree that by encouraging fuller town centre redevelopment he would be giving increased confidence to town centre shops, thus preventing the "doughnut" effect, which is affecting our towns and cities?

Mr Sam Foster: PPS 5 includes a sequential approach to major retail applications, though this is not directly comparable to PPG06. PPS 5 is designed to take a more flexible and balanced approach than PPG06 — protecting town centres while at the same time recognising the need for competition and innovation in a changing retail market.
Under this approach, preference is given to locations for development in a preferred sequence that reflects the type of retailing involved. For comparison or mixed retailing, this starts with town centre locations through edge-of-centre locations to out-of-centre locations. A sequential approach is being taken at this particular time. That approach has led to the elimination of proposals for out-of-centre retailing. The system set out in PPG06 could be considered in any review of retail planning policy by the Department for Regional Development.

Mr John Dallat: In view of the fact that three separate questions have been put down today from three different political parties on the whole issue of retailing, does the Minister accept that this is a major issue which requires a great deal of discussion? This is despite the best efforts of the DUP to rubbish it two weeks ago.

Mr Sam Foster: I take on board what the Member has said. We do give this matter very deep consideration. It is a continual consideration in our Department and we will pursue the matter. Where there are cross-cutting issues we will dovetail with other Departments.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I heard what the Minister said about the Department’s concerns regarding out-of-town shopping centres. However, I am amazed that the Department still continues to pursue the D5 application. I just wonder why — when he expresses his concern about out-of-town shopping centres — the Minister still feels that it is important for his Department to pursue the application for D5, despite the fact we have had two court rulings against the Department on this matter,

Mr Sam Foster: I want to assure Mr Wilson that the Department does not make decisions lightly. My Department will at all times preserve its integrity when assessing applications. I know that Mr Wilson has a substantive question on this matter. However, with your approval, Mr Speaker, I will give a detailed response to his supplementary question.
In respect of D5, I am aware that the applicants have lodged an appeal. In addition I understand that the respondents have cross-appealed. My Department will not be appealing the recent legal decision to quash the planning permission. However, we will be appealing against the court’s interpretation of the "complements" test used by my Department in assessing major retail proposals in out-of-centre locations. The planning application remains live pending the outcome of the appeal. Since the case is sub judice I cannot say more at this stage.

Planning

Mrs Eileen Bell: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment what criteria are being introduced to control the increased in planning applications for apartments and developments, particularly in seaside towns.
(AQO166/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department cannot control the number of new applications submitted for proposed apartment-type developments, nor can it decline to determine a properly completed application submitted for consideration. Certainly, I am aware of growing concerns about this issue. I will be consulting on planning guidance on proposals for small-scale housing within existing urban areas. Future changes to the wider planning policy relating to apartment developments are a matter for the Department for Regional Development, although my Department will provide all possible assistance at any review of the relevant policy.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer. Planning applications seem to be demolition led. In my own constituency — and I am talking about Donaghadee through to Holywood — demolition regularly results in the erection of a large number of apartments that are totally out of keeping with the tradition and character of the area. Can he assure the House and myself that these will be reduced so that the long-term residents, who have great concerns about this, will not be ignored?

Mr Speaker: Several Members want to put supplementary questions, but the time is up. Any reply to the last one will have to be in writing.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill was granted accelerated passage on 3October. As Members will note from the Marshalled List, one amendment has been tabled, and notice to oppose the "stand part" has been signalled for six clauses. The form of the Marshalled List has been changed since the Consideration Stage of the Bill on allowances to make it easier for Members to participate. We have only one amendment at this stage. Proposals to leave out a clause will now be debated, and Members may vote against the Question. Members may indicate in advance their intention to oppose the Question that a clause stand part, which makes possible a debate at that juncture.
Amendments will normally be numbered in sequence, though there is only one in this case. In the past, amendments were numbered according to when they were tabled in the Bill Office. An amendment retained its number no matter what part of a Bill it referred to. From now on, amendments on the Marshalled List will appear in the order in which they will be taken in debate on the Bill. If the Order Paper, the Marshalled List or the annunciator indicates that amendment number4 is being dealt with, a Member will know that amendment3 has just been considered and that amendment5 is about to be considered. Under the previous arrangement, an amendment’s number bore no relation to the order in which it was considered. That is not relevant to this Bill, since there is only one amendment, but it will apply to later Bills where there may be dozens or sometimes even hundreds of amendments. This will help Members to keep track of the debate, from inside and outside the Chamber, particularly if a Consideration Stage lasts for a number of days. Some Members’ distress at this prospect is immediately apparent.
I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to take the Bill’s69 clauses and nine schedules in the parts or sections indicated in the measure. There is no time limit for debate, and Members may speak more than once at Consideration Stage. I see the Minister’s mouth fall. However, I propose to call Members only once during a "stand part" debate on a particular clause or on an amendment. If a Member wishes to intervene again he may do so in the usual way — by requesting the Floor from the Member who is speaking. Since some movement is necessary in these circumstances, and as there is no time limit, interventions should usually be accepted. However, if, in the view of the Speaker, a Member abuses the capacity for intervention, the Speaker will address that. If Members are clear about this, we will move forward. If they are unsure, all will become clear as we proceed.

Mr John Tierney: Since there is no time limit, will we suspend at 6 o’clock tonight and, if necessary, continue tomorrow, or will we run after six?

Mr Speaker: We must end at 6.00 pm because Standing Orders require us to do so. If we are in the middle of a vote at that point we will continue until the end of the vote and then resume tomorrow. We are likely to begin tomorrow with a statement on the Budget, followed by questions. The resumption of the Consideration Stage will follow that.
Clauses 1 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 (Disqualification from driving)
Question proposed

Mr David Ford: Mr Speaker, I hope I will follow the instructions that you gave at the start of this debate. First, I want to make a couple of points which were not covered during the Second Reading, because the Minister did not accept my intervention — I am sure he will do much better today.
Those of us who spoke during the Second Reading made our concerns about clause 16 and clauses 53 onwards clear. We did not wish to breach parity in regard to benefits paid, but we were concerned about mindlessly adopting parity on certain other issues. It is obvious that there are no financial costs, so the Minister’s suggestion that if parity were breached we should expect to bear the cost is a trifle irrelevant. He referred to the previous week’s pensions motion, which was passed unanimously — including DUP support. I want to remind the House and the Minister that that motion was a call to the Westminster Government on behalf of pensioners across the UK. It was simply that we sought to maintain parity of the benefits paid, because there is parity of National Insurance contributions and income tax.
A provision in this clause allows the courts to disqualify those in breach of child support payments from driving for up to two years. There is also the possibility that the matter could return to the courts and the disqualification could further extended. If a person found guilty of drunken driving — an offence which is entirely related to the possession of a driving licence — is unlikely to lose their licence for more than one year, then there is a serious question over whether that is an appropriate penalty for something which is completely different.
None of us are experts on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, but we must ask if it has implications here. There is the prospect of a man in court — and it is normally a man in these circumstances — saying "I was a safe driver, but they took away my driving licence for something unrelated. As a result I suffered difficulties in my life as an ordinary citizen."
We must consider what implications that might have across Northern Ireland, particularly when the region is significantly more rural than the UK as a whole. We have just had questions on regional development, so we know that possession of a car is almost becoming a human right in rural areas, because public transport is completely inadequate. The loss of a driving licence in those circumstances must be regarded as a serious penalty, and disproportionate to the crime, or the misdemeanour — there is some doubt as to whether defaulting on a child support payment is a crime or not.
Another major issue is that a driving licence is often a virtual requirement for a job. Those jobs that require the ability to drive may or may not be considered by the courts. Many other people require a driving licence to get to a normal place of work. Is it not a little illogical, when we are discussing the difficulties of extracting child support payments from fathers, to create a further barrier to employment by disqualifying them from driving? It is an absolute nonsense. It may be the sort of knee-jerk response that appeals to the Government and the editor of the Daily Mail, but let us have a little bit of wit. Let us consider in this Assembly what will work and will not.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate some of the points that the Member is making. Can he explain what he would consider to be an appropriate sanction on people who continually refuse to pay benefit to the most needy in our society, namely young people and children who are being denied a benefit that their parents ought to be paying to them?

Mr David Ford: It is not part of my case to suggest that defaulters should not have sanctions applied to them. The issue is — [Interruption] If the Member wants me to give way, he should let me finish my sentence. The issue is what is an appropriate and workable sanction. It is clear that withdrawing a driving licence is not appropriate, workable or beneficial in any way to the children concerned. Does the Member wish me to give way now?

Mr Jim Shannon: What is?

Mr Speaker: Order. This is going to descend into complete chaos, unless Members who have not yet spoken but so wish indicate a desire to do so. By intervening Members do have a further opportunity to speak, but if they do so all the time, the proceedings will degenerate into chaos. If Members wish to speak, that is absolutely fine, but they should indicate to the Chair that they wish to do so.

Mr David Ford: Speaking as the father of four children, two of whom, fortunately, have their own driving licences, I agree with the person who said that a father’s principal function nowadays is to provide a magic carpet — the ability to get his children from A to B. That is particularly so in cases where the parents are separated and the father is living away from the children, so his only opportunity to see them is at weekends or on occasional evenings. There is generally a presumption that an outing has to be arranged and that the children have to be taken somewhere.
If that is the only contact between a father and his children, do we really wish to take away his driving licence and remove that contact? I have no doubt that the Minister will say — for he hinted at it at the Second Reading — that the issue is not whether we should be taking away driving licences but whether people should learn to behave themselves. We might even be told that those who are good boys and comply with the law will be at no risk from this, and, therefore, we should happily let this go through.
Unfortunately, however, there are circumstances in which child support payments go wrong, and I am sure that there will be further occasions when they will go wrong. There are occasions when people fall foul of the regulations through no fault of their own. If we were to apply this kind of draconian penalty — the possibility of losing a driving licence for twoyears and then for a subsequent twoyears, and for dear knows how much longer — rather than employing a method which would encourage contact and the payment of support, we are going to end up in a situation in which the Minister’s statement will be little more than that of a hostage-taker who says "Behave yourself or the kids will get hurt."
We should throw out this clause. It is not required for parity of benefits; it is a disgracefully illiberal clause, and I urge the House to throw it out.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: One of the difficulties of an accelerated passage is that even if a Committee were responsible for such legislation, it does not get the opportunity to tease out all of the implications of some of the clauses.
I am opposed to the inclusion of this clause in the legislation, although not because of the reasons that MrFord mentioned. In my view this clause would create a law that would be an alternative to a prison sentence. It would give the judge the option of exercising this punitive sanction rather than sending the person to jail.
One could see the argument that if someone were to vote against this clause, they would be voting for the judge to send the man — for it usually is a man — to jail. On considering that, one could understand to some extent the reasoning behind it. One could see that arguments about accessibility and other things that might affect that person would be of no great importance if that person were to be subsequently jailed.
However, that is not the reason why I want to speak against this. I want to speak against it because it is almost like a draconian extension of punitive arrangements for courts to use, and we should be keeping away from that. It has also not been properly tested here in Northern Ireland. There are people who make the argument about parity — there should be parity on this and parity on that. For example, holding a driving licence allows one to vote in Northern Ireland, but that is not the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. Has this been tested in Northern Ireland?
What are the implications of this here with regard to a person’s right to vote and his democratic opportunity to vote? Are we interfering with these? Where would such sequence of thought lead? Should we start removing other means of identification such as passports? We are on a road here which might be more reminiscent of what one would have seen some years ago behind the Iron Curtain — a draconian system of control.
This is not the direction to take. There are already sufficient powers in the justice system to allow these people to be brought to book. The courts in particular do not wield them powerfully enough. Instead of having a penal sentence, the new article 37A(1)(b) states that the court may
"make a disqualification order but suspend its operation".
Therefore the order will be hanging over the individual. But here, as in the normal course of court activity, there are suspended sentences and other measures that judges may use to ensure that people honour their obligations.
By removing something that is regarded as an individual’s right we are abusing a civil right. On that principle I am opposed to the inclusion of the clause.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. Under previous child support legislation, if the parent with care was receiving benefits and the absent parent was paying money to the Child Support Agency, that money did not go to the parent with care or towards a better standard of living for the children. Instead it went towards paying off the benefits of the parent with care. It is important to make the legislation and the system fair so that the absent parent who pays child support sees the benefit going to his children. The system should be simplified so that the parent with care and the children concerned are protected and benefit from the payments. If children benefit from child support, their fathers are more likely to pay it so fewer absent parents will renege on their responsibilities.
I concur with everything that previous Members have said about the draconian measure contained in this Bill. It is a breach of human rights to take away someone’s driving licence as a punitive measure, and I oppose the inclusion of this clause for that reason.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The purpose of the new child support measure is to clear up the mess with existing legislation. In my experience, many people got into difficulties with their payments because of the complexity of the regulations. Sometimes it took six to nine months to assess a case, by which time massive arrears had built up. Another reason was that people could not understand how the final figure was arrived at. When the chief executive of the Child Support Agency attended the Committee session, even he said that the method of calculation was complex and that sometimes up to 100 variables have to be taken into consideration. This has all led to people feeling that they have been wrongly treated or getting into arrears through no fault of theirs.
It must be remembered that the system has now been simplifed so that a standard amount of 15% of the absent parent’s income for the first child, and 5% for each subsequent child, is payable. There will no longer be a long time spent on trying to find out what a father owes.
Therefore, it is not particularly likely that anyone will get into debt as a result of the complexity of the system. By and large, those who are not paying will fall into the category of those who have decided not to pay. If this legislation is to mean anything, it has to protect those who have been left to look after children and who cannot get any money from the absent parent.
MrFord said that he was not opposed to parity of benefit. However, those who propose the exclusion of clause16 are saying to parents in Northern Ireland who are left looking after children that they will not get the same access to payment as would be the case in the rest of the UnitedKingdom. The parents who are left looking after the children would be short changed. If we remove the sanctions from the Bill, we will be giving parity of benefit, without parity of implementation. That is not fair.

Mr David Ford: Does the Member not accept that a measure that is likely to reduce the level of contact between fathers and their children would be equally disadvantageous for those children?

Mr Sammy Wilson: That is an important point. We must look at the qualifications in the clause. I have already made the point that the system will be less complex, so it is likely that those who are not paying will have decided wilfully not to pay. In most cases, judging by my constituency caseload, those people do not want to have contact with their children anyway. The provisions in the clause are ringed with qualifications. The Bill states
"The Department may apply".
So the Department will have to make an assessment before it applies to a court. Even then, a driving licence will not automatically be removed. The court can take into consideration whether the driving licence is needed to earn a living and also take income into consideration. The court must ask whether the absent parent has been unable to pay because he does not have the money, or because of wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
There are sufficient qualifications to guard against the possible problems that have been identified by the person who proposed that the clause be removed. We all want a fairer system of support for children and one that is enforceable. There is no point in making it easier for absent parents to pay and then removing any sanction on the minority who will not make their contribution, even if the system has been made easier. We would be doing a disservice to the parents who are left looking after the children.
There is also the question of human rights. First, this is UKlegislation, so I assume that the human rights aspect has already been examined. Secondly, we are not unique in Europe in implementing such sanctions. As far as I am aware, in no other country where this kind of sanction is imposed has it been the subject of a human-rights case.
It is one thing to say that we are concerned about the human rights of people — and believe it will be a very small minority because of the reasons I gave earlier — who refuse to make the contribution. What about the rights of the parent left looking after the children, and what about the children who require that support? Are they not also entitled to some protection? Are they not entitled to have their rights honoured?
I believe that, given the qualifications which surround this matter — and I have gone through the various parts of the clauses — we are going to be dealing with a small minority of people. The penalty will not be automatic. The Department may decide the fact and when the case goes to court, the court will still be able to look at mitigating circumstances. Given the simplicity of the arrangements, we will now have a system in which it should be easier for the absent parent to avoid getting into arrears and into a position where they cannot pay. The simplicity of the arrangements should ensure that they do not feel aggrieved because they cannot understand the system by which they have been assessed.
The only conclusion we can come to is that we are going to be dealing with a very small minority of people who do not want to pay, and those people ought to have sanctions imposed on them. This is a reasonable sanction.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I will not go over ground that has already been covered by other Members who have been opposing this particular clause, except that once again I raise an enormous concern, particularly from those working with abused women. They know from experience that when something as punitive as this happens, the partner has abuse or indeed violence revisited on them because we blame that absent partner for having led to this in the first place.
It is one thing indeed to raise financial penalties — and I note the concerns about not being able to go above the 25% limit. Therefore, the Department and the agency are thinking of other ways of enforcing penalties on those who refuse to pay.
We should be concerned about that because, as Mr Wilson said, there are a number of individuals who continue to refuse to pay support. They tend to be extremely belligerent individuals and I am concerned that given such a punitive method of attempting to make them pay — and we do not even know if it will work — they may blame the partner who they already blame considerably for having enforced payments on them in the first place. This is particularly so if they feel they have made some private arrangements with that individual in relation to the house.
I have just noticed the Rowntree findings from a large study which has just been carried out on how parents cope financially on marriage breakdown. The results actually show that formal child maintenance was relatively infrequent, and much more commonly a non-resident parent provided some support for the child through a voluntary arrangement, even where the carer was receiving social security benefits.
Of course, we know that over and over again the dispute ends up over what they feel they have already given or donated. Often, it is a voluntary arrangement. However, we are talking about a mandatory arrangement that they may not feel obliged to pay. I raise that as an enormous concern.
I also take the point that we are leaving it to judges to decide whether the liable person is earning a living and is dependent on a driving licence. That leaves huge discretion and enormous questions to be asked, and these are not tightened up in this legislation. Indeed, it will be left to the court to decide whether a person needs to use a driving licence to get to work. It will have to decide if driving is a fundamental part of a person’s work. It will have to decide if a person living in a rural area and dependent on public transport, as opposed to living in an urban area, would be unable to keep their job as a consequence of losing their licence.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the Member acknowledge that judges make this type of decision every day in a wide range of driving cases, except in those where there is a mandatory punishment, for example, in drink-driving cases? Judges will always have to weigh up — for example, in cases of reckless driving or careless driving — issues such as the need for the person to have a licence. It is something they are used to deciding, and I do not particularly see a problem with having that level of discretion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I agree, but I have spoken to judges about this, and they feel that when legislation is being introduced, the tighter it can be made the better it is for them. They have made that point over and over again. They do not want to be left in a situation where they have a huge list of individuals and no definition as to what measure should be used against whom. I have concerns that many people would be leaving the courts with less confidence in them rather than more; perhaps because another case was treated differently, even though the job was similar.
At a time when the Department is introducing driving licences and driving training as a means of gaining employment, we may simultaneously be working against that by taking driving licences away from people.
I note that the explanatory notes and, indeed, much of the legislation argue that the Secretary of State gives consent, but it seems to me that the criminal justice system remains a reserved matter, and it is not outlined here that the Secretary of State has given consent to this particular part of the Bill. I would like to have some further clarification as to whether, given that criminal justice is a reserved matter, it can be covered in a piece of legislation like this. Obviously, we are supposed to be maintaining parity with the rest of the UK, and the Bill has been written with similar circumstances in mind, but here is one circumstance in which we differ from the rest of the UK.
Finally, I want to raise a concern. Should the Committee have looked at this, or did it not get the opportunity because of accelerated passage? Was the case examiner of the Child Support Agency for Great Britain — who also covers the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency — asked for views on any of this?
I note that, in her most recent report, she says that she is pleased to see that a number of things are now taking place, and that the delays, errors and poor communications, which were the major problems associated with child support, seemed to be being tightened up. I argue that, most of all, we need to get the communications right. DrPaisley raised this issue last week when he said that due to poor communications, individuals are being held liable when they ought not to be. It seems to me that with the introduction of such a huge penalty, it would be very important to get that piece of communication right.
The examiner points out that in the last year — and this is very sad to note — the statistics in this report do not cover Northern Ireland. We know what has happened in England, Wales and Scotland, is broken down by region. Having looked at all the graphs and statistics, I found, unfortunately, that Northern Ireland is not mentioned, even though this report is meant to include it.
The report points out that complaints have increased, not as a percentage, but in absolute numbers, and that over 704 complaints have been accepted. Many were rejected, but 704, which is a substantial number, were accepted by the independent case examiner, and I have no doubt that many of those complaints would raise enormous concerns about the agency’s work in terms of having specified who was liable for what.
I think that this is extremely punitive. We ought to be thinking of other ways to approach enforcement in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that a piece of legislation on social security should be asking that such matters be referred to the court for discretion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: This could be a very emotive debate, and, indeed, some people have been emotive in some of the things that they have said. However, it is important to be emotive for the right reasons, and the right reason to be emotive, I believe, is to ensure that the most vulnerable in society, not the person who wants to avoid paying what he or she should be paying, get what they are entitled to — and that is the children.
This legislation and, indeed, this clause, will allow the most vulnerable in society to have their chance at getting something which everyone else across the rest of the United Kingdom will be entitled to. If we do not give them this chance, we could be making them victims. It is essential that we guard against that. Members who have spoken before me have raised specific points that I would like to deal with. MrFord kindly gave way to me and I asked him to suggest a workable sanction. He replied that the removal of a driving licence would not be workable. On the contrary, it is the one thing that probably would work, because it could be monitored. Controls could be exercised by the courts and by Government agencies, because they can monitor who has a driving licence and whether the licence is being used legally or illegally. I suggest to him that this is the only workable option.

Mr David Ford: The Member has made an interesting point. I think that the provision in clause17 for financial penalty payments would be likely to be more successful than removing driving licences. Perhaps the Member is unaware that even in North Antrim people have been known to drive without licences, thereby driving without insurance. Surely he does not wish to add to that problem?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That is interesting but the point of removing a driving licence is that the person has already defaulted on making payments. To suggest that we try to get him to make more payments when he would not pay in the first place is what is unworkable about this.
I suggest that this is a very workable option. Both MrFord and MrONeill indicated that it is a draconian measure; I suggest to them that it is not. Indeed, if they are concerned about it they should look more closely at the clause. My Colleague, MrS Wilson, explained how it would operate. I refer them to the words in article 36A(3) —
"whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect" —
and to the phrase in clause53
"without reasonable excuse".
The sanction cannot be regarded as draconian because it would only be used in very particular circumstances such as when a person who has been brought to court is unable to produce a reasonable excuse for his failure to make payments. On that basis I think that they ought to be concerned.
To refer again to article 36A(3), the aim is to protect children who have been neglected. Let us focus on that. We are not dealing with someone who has missed a couple of payments in a 12-month period. We are dealing with someone who wilfully neglects his children, wilfully takes money that is theirs and thus wilfully removes food from their fridge and from their kitchen table and clothes from their back. Under any other set of circumstances, that wilful neglect would result in absolute condemnation from across the House. Here we have an opportunity to protect children from such wilful neglect, and we are backing away from it. I suggest to the House that we seize the opportunity to guard and protect those children.

Mr David Ervine: As far as I am aware, in the Criminal Justice Review no party suggested that a paedophile should have his driving licence removed for wilful damage to a child or that a mother or father who neglects or is brutal to a child should have their driving licence removed. Does the Member believe that perhaps we should look at those circumstances in the future?

Mr Peter Robinson: They would be put in prison.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member has raised an interesting point. My Colleague is indicating that paedophiles face an ultimate sanction, which is prison, and I will come to that in a moment. The Criminal Justice Bill is up for review, and the Secretary of State is considering options. I am sure the Member and other parties will also have proposals to make when that issue is before the House.
However, for the moment let us focus on the wilful neglect of children who ought to be receiving money from a parent. I again advise the House to seize the opportunity and use this good means to ensure that those payments are made.
The Member mentioned jail. Mr ONeill said that the removal of the licence was a very draconian option. However, the alternative suggestion would be that the person should go to jail. If that is Mr ONeill’s alternative, it is even more draconian. If he wants to bring forward an amendment that involves jail, then we will look at that option.
Mr ONeill said — and he should be corrected on this — that driving licences give people in Northern Ireland a right to vote. He is wrong. Driving licences do not give people a right to vote. They are a unique means of identification enabling people to exercise their franchise, but there are several other means of identification that people can use and are entitled to use. I suggest to him that throwing in that emotive issue and saying that it would deny someone the right to vote is wrong. It does not help this debate. It does not help people who want to make a serious contribution to this issue. He should reflect on that and possibly withdraw his comments, because they are wrong.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I think that the House recognises the sincerity with which the Member speaks and, indeed, the sincerity that we all have on this issue. Members all recognise the seriousness of it, and the impact of what we are doing here today. We should therefore be very careful. There were two things that I was referring to when I mentioned the electoral arrangements. One was whether we know the impact that this is going to have for us in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we do, because arrangements here are that bit different. Indeed, the same applies to some of the other clauses. They have not been tested. The opportunity has existed in Britain for some of that testing to take place.
The second matter related to the use of prison and the use of the word "draconian". I am using the word "draconian" in relation to introducing a punishment that is not standard under normal human and civil rights. It is an addition above what is normally accepted, and it is introduced as a new punishment. I recognise, as all of us would, that certain circumstances while driving can result in one losing one’s licence. That, however, is related to the crime. This is not, and I asked the question of where we would end if we were to start down that road. Where do we end and what else would we take away? That is the substance of the point that I was trying to make.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the Member fleshing out the point that he was trying to make. I suggest, however, that he has dug himself further into the hole on this issue. In his earlier comments he asked the House whether we were going to consider removing someone’s passport or some other draconian measures. He said that these were kinds of Iron Curtain measures. The well-known Iron Curtain country of Sweden removes a person’s passport if that individual defaults on these types of payments. Indeed, several other European countries have even more stringent regulations. The Member is a great European, and his party is very strong on Europe, so I would have thought that he would be quite willing to embrace what is a common practice across the rest of the European Union.

Prof Monica McWilliams: It may be the case that others do so, but that does not suggest for one moment that we should follow. We are here to debate what is good for Northern Ireland. That is why the issue of suspended sentences and breach of orders in Northern Ireland has been looked at recently, and we will be coming to that later in relation to another matter. For men who had abused and were persistently returning to the court and getting suspended sentences and were breaching orders which bound them over to keep the peace, it was decided that it would be a useful intervention to mandate them to attend behaviour programmes. These are known as "men overcoming violence" programmes, and research and evaluation have shown those programmes to be very successful.
What research shows this to be successful? It is useful to divert people from custodial care if possible, because there is no point in filling up the prisons when there may be other programmes and interventions that work. We know from research that mandated programmes that deal with the cause — which is the behaviour — work, but simply taking people’s driving licences off them may not work. We do not know.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Member for reinforcing the point that I was making to Mr ONeill. This is not some unique draconian measure. It is common practice in other places.
The other point the Member tried to make is that this would in some way increase custodial sentences. I think that clause 16 would actually ensure that there would not be as many people held in custody as there would be if we went down another particular road. For that reason, I suggest that this is a good measure.
We are trying to protect the victim. Who is the victim? Are we going to focus on the person who is defaulting on making their payment? Is that person a victim? That might be argued in some circumstances, but we are trying to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. This Bill deals with them. All the Members who appear to be in favour of this clause would, in another place and even in this place, and other circumstances and other political arguments, chide me and my party for not having alternatives. What has been suggested in the House today is not an alternative to clause 16.

Mr David Ervine: Taking up that last point, alternatives are very difficult when you have accelerated passage. My party will be extremely loath to allow accelerated passage again. It is highly unlikely that we will ever stay silent when the leave of the House is asked for again. It is all very well that we have the responsibility to deal with that society out there, but we also have a responsibility to scrutinise and make good law.
It seems to me that we would create a dangerous and quite ludicrous precedent by allowing a sanction to be introduced that is unrelated to the perceived misdemeanour or crime, and that is the removal of the driving licence. Mr ONeill makes a fair point when he says "What comes next?" Not only that, but where else do we decide that where there is an infraction we will take the driving licence?
It is my painful experience that when Governments get emergency legislation they guard it jealously, never wishing to have it off the statute books as it is beneficial to them and they would not want to get rid of it. I fear that this is a pathetic knee-jerk reaction, and for it to come from a socialist Government is, quite frankly, ludicrous. I do not want to draw analogies between Tony Blair’s New Labour and the Minister for Social Development, but I stood on a platform in Glasgow where Ian Paisley Jnr said, and I quote: "The Democratic Unionist Party is a socialist party." I know that Ian will not contradict me on that.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member’s interpretation is inaccurate. I think that what I said was — and I was quoting a founding father of our party, a man who used to sit in this House, Mr Desmond Boal — that the Democratic Unionist Party is to the left on social issues but to the right on the constitution. I think that is the exact quote that I used, several years ago in Glasgow.

Mr David Ervine: We probably do not want to get into this debate, but I think there is a transcript of that meeting, which may well determine that I am correct. It was organised by ‘The Scotsman,’ which reported exactly what I perceived Mr Paisley to have said.
Nevertheless, we have the grand defence and, as Mr Paisley said, if others were in a different forum, asking different questions with different responsibilities, they might say something else. I think that is exactly right, and the Minister would do well to remember that they do try to appeal to those who have less opportunity than most, those who are vulnerable.
We all have constituency responsibilities, so it is irrational and shameful to suggest that those arguing against this clause are less concerned for children or struggling partners than they are. This would be a dangerous precedent and it is unnecessary as the full rigour of the law is already being applied in these cases.
The Department is cleaning up its act in terms of the Child Support Agency — the state is now taking greater responsibility than the partners who suffer because of those who will not pay. If MLA Wilson is correct in saying that the clause will apply to so few, why include it? Look at all the constrictions that will inform the judge’s decision.
I know people who have a driving licence and no car. The loss of the driving licence may not be punitive at all to whose who cannot afford to run a car or who take too much alcohol. When considering the confiscation of licences, we did not think of taking a shotgun licence away from someone who has fun with a shotgun in the fields. We did not think about taking a television or a fishing licence away.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker: The Member will be able to speak very soon. It might be best to wait.

Mr Jim Shannon: There have been occasions when such licences were taken away.

Mr David Ervine: The licence is to be taken away because of the non-payment of child support.

Mr Jim Shannon: Clearly, they were taken from people who were drunk in charge.

Mr David Ervine: It does not matter. Of course, a licence can be taken away because of an abuse of the system or infringement of the law. It is a human right to drive a vehicle, provided you do so within the law and are competent to do so. It could be considered that gun, television or fishing licences permit leisurely pursuits, yet we do not advocate their confiscation. If you have driven much in this country you will know that driving is not necessarily fun.
This clause would not make any difference. Many of the Bill’s positive elements will undoubtedly assist the struggling partner, but this nonsensical idea of taking a driving licence away could be replicated by another or the same Department. Therefore, my party and I are absolutely against this.

Mr Jim Shannon: Members have argued against the inclusion of this clause. I will say why it should be included. Members have talked about the vulnerability of children — the ones we are trying to protect. When a parent makes no direct contribution towards the upkeep of his children, they are left vulnerable. Children are vulnerable when no food is on the table, when there are no clothes on their backs and when they do not have the toys that their friends at school have. This is what the Child Support Agency is trying to address. I am aggrieved that some Members feel that this legislation, which we hope will be introduced, is inapplicable.
One Member highlighted behaviour programmes as a means of addressing the problem — that would not make these parents more accountable.
Behaviour programmes are a way of patting them on the wrist and telling them not to do it again. These are people who have habitually, purposefully and wilfully refused to support their children. As long as they purposefully, habitually and wilfully do that, we need adequate, acceptable legislation. Members have talked about practices in other countries. Mr Ian Paisley Jnr referred to Sweden, where a passport can be removed. Do Members feel that that is sufficient, or do they feel that they should do something else? We have Members who want to do something, but who cannot come up with a suitable alternative.
The new article 36A refers to the removal of the licence as a last resort. That is its exact purpose. We talked earlier about parity, and it is important to maintain that. There is real concern about having parity with the United Kingdom. However, this is not just a matter of having parity with the United Kingdom; we are also protecting the rights of children and other vulnerable groups.

Mr David Ervine: I am struggling to find where it says that.

Rev William McCrea: Grow up.

Mr David Ervine: No. I am trying to find where it says "as a last resort". The text does not say it. It might well be a judge’s first resort determination.

Mr Jim Shannon: Obviously the Member has difficulty understanding the English language, though we all know he comes out with big words in the Chamber. We hear it all the time. We are talking about legislation and, for people who have not made any contribution towards supporting their children, this article will be used as a last resort to try to make them accountable. That is what we are referring to. The new article 37A says — just for those Members who perhaps have difficulty reading — "If, but only if". "If, but only if there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect" will the sanction be used. Quite clearly the measure will be used as a last resort. Allow me to quote the new article 37A (1)(b) also:
" it may make a disqualification order, but suspend its operation".
This amounts to a second chance; before making an order for disqualification, the courts can suspend the operation and thereby give the person another opportunity to pay.
The thrust of the legislation is to ensure that we can make those people pay who habitually do not pay. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are looking for. If the policy is not agreed today, we will have left a loophole which will allow those people who have defaulted on their child support payments to continue to do so. What alternatives are Members proposing? We need a deterrent. This is not one that will be used lightly, but it may have to be used. If this measure will ensure that parents are accountable, we must adopt it. I cannot comprehend the comments of some Members. We have to have legislation that makes people accountable, and what the Minister has put forward is exactly that. I suggest that Members think of those who are most vulnerable, think of the children. If they do, they will support this.

Mr Peter Robinson: I welcome a full debate on these issues. Far too often such matters have been dealt with by Orders in Council, which meant that we could not have an input into what was happening with very important issues.
As a Member who has had to address Child Support Agency (CSA) issues many times for his constituents, I have been very frustrated at the way in which the legislation has caused problems not only for a mother who cannot get the necessary payments through to enable her to look after a child or children properly, but also for husbands who are anxious that the payment levels have been applied incorrectly. I welcome the Minister’s introduction of a Bill that will go some way towards clearing up some of those matters.
I would, however, ask that the House, in its enthusiasm to get hold of a piece of legislation and get its thumbprints on it, ensure that it does not smudge the legislation. I fear that that is what Members are going to do. There seems to be a consensus among those Members who are opposed to this clause that they are opposed to it for very different reasons. Some are opposed because they think that the Bill is not going to make any difference at all; others are opposed because they think that it is terrible and draconian. However, they do agree with one another that it is should not be in the Bill.
Let us step back for a moment. What is the Minister trying to do with this piece of legislation? He is recognising the fact that there are defaulters, people who are not paying their way, people who have a responsibility towards a child or children, but who are not putting their money where their mouth is. For whatever reason, the money is not coming forward.
The first question the House should be asking itself is this: how do we ensure that we get the funds from those individuals? That has to be a priority. Whatever the House may do with this piece of legislation, it should be on the side of the child — the child must be its priority. Account must be taken of individuals’ rights — and I will come to those rights in a moment — but the burden of the legislation is to apply sanctions that will act as a deterrent, thereby ensuring that people do pay up.
Members have said that it is terrible to pass legislation that will take away someone’s driving licence. If someone is reluctant to pay up, something must be done to hurt that person. If it does not have that effect, it will not be a sanction, and it will not encourage them to pay up. This Bill is far from draconian — it provides a lesser punishment, to be used under lesser circumstances, because the present legislation stipulates a prison sentence. Members opposite are saying that it is terrible and draconian for the Minister to be considering a piece of legislation that will take someone’s driving licence away rather than sanction him with imprisonment. I think the average guy out there who is in default of payment might, marginally, prefer to have his licence taken from him than to go to prison. As for being able to see his children, the issue that everyone is concerned about, and being able to continue working, those aspects of his life are better protected by the lesser sanction that the Minister proposes to insert in the legislation than the one that is already there. All this piece of legislation will do is provide the courts with a further option, which they might use in the right circumstances, say, for instance, if an individual had to use his vehicle. This legislation can be used to protect people’s rights.
So let us be clear: this it is not a draconian measure. It is a lesser sanction that can be used by the courts in the right set of circumstances. Some Members say that if it is going to be so seldom used, why bother to have it there? I am taking those arguments and dealing with them. [Interruption]
They are, and you agreed with them.
The record will show that after Mr Ervine referred to MLA Wilson — I think that that was the term that he used — he then said that he agreed with him.
In truth, I hope that this is never used. The fact that it exists is a deterrent in itself. The deterrent is that the provision is there, and if a person does not pay up, then it can be applied. That will be what forces them to make the payment. I hope that MLA Wilson is right when he makes that judgement, and I hope that Mr Ervine is right when he says that he agrees with him.
Mr Ervine seemed to think, by the way, that he was wounding the Democratic Unionist Party by applying to the party the terrible criticism it is socialist. I do not quake at the knees when someone calls me a socialist. In the best Ulster style of radical social reformers, this party is happy to bear those insults.
It would be dangerous for the House to consider moving away from parity as regards this kind of legislation. Under devolution it is right that a Northern Ireland Assembly should attempt, as far as possible, to do things in the Ulster way and to have legislation that fits our own set of circumstances. However, we should be careful when dealing with the Treasury and with legislation that has parity as far as benefits, et cetera, are concerned. If we move away on any one of these aspects, if we give them an excuse in any area of parity legislation, we could well find ourselves further down the line.
If that happens, I will happily come out holding a copy of today’s debate and remind Members that they were warned about it. I know that if this amendment is carried —

Mr David Ervine: Will the Member applaud the Scottish Parliament for having had the courage to address the issue of student fees in a manner different to the attitude that pertained at Westminster? This has been done; there is precedent where a law is regarded as not being a good one for a particular area. Indeed, the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 does not cover this area is one example of other parties playing in an à la carte manner.

Mr Peter Robinson: I made it clear, and if the Member looks at the record, he will see that to be the case, that in general terms, we should attempt to stamp our own brand on any legislation that comes forward. I am warning of the dangers, when dealing with benefit payments and such matters, of departing from the general parity principle.
Another matter that needs to be dealt with by the Assembly relates to the alternatives. I have looked at today’s Order Paper and at the amendments that have been put forward. On every occasion they are saying "No. Take it out. Delete it. Do away with it." Do they offer an alternative, however? No. There is no alternative. They cannot continue to say "No"; they really must come forward with alternatives.
All that those with amendments are attempting to do is to pull the teeth out of the Bill. They want to leave it as a gummy creature, which is incapable of extracting any money from defaulters. We have to face up to reality; we will not succeed without sanctions.
In this piece of legislation, the Minister has provided a way of doing that. If Members want to come back with an alternative way of doing so, let them do that, but they should not criticise those who have been positive, have brought forward proposals and provided a way forward. They might even recognise the words that I am using. May I say that I also agree —

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Member agree that it would be difficult for us to introduce alternatives, given that criminal justice is a reserved matter? I was making the point that there are alternatives; there are diversionary programmes instead of custody. Alternatives exist, and we have introduced them in Northern Ireland, but since criminal justice is a reserved matter, it is not possible to do so from this Floor. We are simply saying that we need to delete this particular clause. It may indeed be the case that, under the criminal justice legislation, we will wish to look at those proposals.

Mr Peter Robinson: I shall return to my office and look very closely at the Women’s Coalition submission to the review to see what alternatives they proposed. I rather suspect that there are not too many. Just as they have the ability to amend this legislation to take things out, they have the ability to amend it to put things in. They did not take the opportunity to offer the Minister any alternatives.
While I accept that there are clearly drawbacks to accelerated passage, Members all accepted it. There was not a whimper from any part of this Chamber when the accelerated passage was sought. If there had been even a squeak from the corner, the process would not have gone forward. They can hardly complain at this stage when they did not take the proper action at the appropriate time. Therefore, I encourage the Assembly to think long and hard before it removes any authority, sanction and teeth that this Bill might have.
If Members really want to be on someone’s side regarding this legislation, let them be on the side of the child who, because of the defaulting parent, is not receiving the funds. The only way one can do that is to allow the courts an additional mechanism to use, either as a deterrent or, ultimately, as a sanction if the payment is not made.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I too oppose clause 16, because I feel personally that a driving licence is a civil liberty. There are disabled people in our society who need a car to get about. Are we to take that vehicle away from them and deny them that opportunity? If we answer in the negative because they are disabled, we fly in the face of our own equality legislation, for we cannot discriminate between people who are able-bodied and those who are disabled. There is an inconsistency.
There are a number of alternatives to the draconian penal measures outlined. There are community service orders, probation orders, and other measures that can be taken by the courts without actually sending someone to jail for non-payment. It is understood that jail is the ultimate deterrent, and it is to be hoped that that will have the desired effect. My Colleague MrONeill mentioned using one’s driving licence as identification when one goes to vote. I know that many people find it a convenient way to identify themselves.

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member is introducing a red herring, for he knows that everyone in Northern Ireland has access to a medical card. Most of us have access to a British passport, and many have benefit books. This spurious argument that someone cannot vote if their driving licence is taken away is absolute nonsense.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Despite what the Member has just said, if a person is working, they will not have a benefit book. Perhaps some people have more access to medical cards than others. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Danny O'Connor: As for passports, most people could have two if they so desired, and many probably do. The idea of taking a passport away may be considered by some as draconian, but I feel it is less draconian than removing someone’s driving licence. Mr Ervine raised the issue of revoking television licences. In this country, there are 150,000 licensed firearms. Are we to tell people that, because they have not paid their child support, we are going to take their firearms licence from them?
Where do we draw the line? Where do we start to let individuals have what is —[Interruption] If you want me to give way, Oliver, just ask.

Mr Peter Robinson: As I understand it, the burden of the Member’s suggestion is that we should be proposing less draconian measures. However, the Bill includes the power to put people in prison: does the Member not agree that something less draconian, namely the ability to take away a driving licence, should be in the Bill?

Mr Danny O'Connor: I am advocating less draconian measures. Probation — giving someone 200 hours community service — is actually a first step; it is not putting someone in jail. It is a deterrent on its own and makes the person pay for what they have done.
My concern — Mr S Wilson and Mr Ervine also referred to this — is that the provision does not automatically mean that someone’s driving licence will be taken away. Someone could come to court with a clever lawyer and build up a better case than someone else. Some people will have their driving licence taken away and others will not. There are enough sanctions in the current procedures.
Nobody is suggesting that irresponsible fathers, or mothers, should not pay for their children. They should pay and, if they do not, the measures that are already available through the criminal justice system should be implemented on the existing sliding scale that includes fines, community service or probation. The Assembly should not go down the road of taking away driving licences and, maybe later, passports.

Mr Derek Hussey: You approve of a sliding scale. The measure suggested here could be part of that sliding scale. What would be the difference?

Mr Danny O'Connor: A sliding scale currently exists, and it includes fines, community service, probation and, ultimately, jail — or, as Draco would have prescribed, cutting people’s heads off. We need to look at the issue and pull back. Are we going to take firearms certificates away from people who are caught shoplifting or tell people that they are not allowed to have a colour television licence or tell lorry drivers that they cannot have a HGV licence? I sincerely hope that the clause is removed.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made, and it is obvious that some have taken to wall gazing and are not focusing on the real picture. Members oppose clause 16 for a range of reasons. There is no consistency in the reasons why they want it removed, but they want it removed, none the less.
Clause 16 introduces a new civil penalty, allowing the making of an order by a court of summary jurisdiction — a magistrate’s court — disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. It will be an alternative to committal proceedings.
To put things in their proper prospective, I remind Members that the Assembly — nobody else — decided to go for accelerated passage. Not a single, solitary Member muttered anything against it until today, when they know that they cannot do anything about it.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We have discovered, since I put this point to the Assembly, that there was a problem elsewhere in the building, and Committees were sitting at the same time as the business was being taken. Indeed, the business had been moved up the Order Paper and there were no annunciators in the Committee rooms. That was a particular problem that has now been recognised. My Colleague, Ms Morrice, was Deputy Speaker at that moment.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Ms McWilliams is not the only person today who has spoken and voiced her concern about this accelerated passage. There were umpteen other people around this Assembly who could have come down and spent 20 or 30 seconds of their valuable time and stopped it. Today, they expressed their concern because it was going down that road.
I am not responsible for annunciators. I do not organise the business of this House. The order of business on that day — just like today, as Members discovered — was changed instantly. Therefore, that was not of my making.

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Minister will be aware that the purpose of accelerated passage is to deal with pieces of legislation to which parity is deemed to apply. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — as agreed by the parties in this Assembly today — places an obligation on the Minister to seek to consult with the Secretary of State for the purpose of maintaining parity on social security, child support and pensions.
Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? In light of that, all this talk about wanting to stop accelerated passage and all this complaint about maintaining parity seems not to comply with the provisions of the Act agreed by the parties in this House.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank the Member for making that point and I confirm that that is the case.
I am aware that the penalty of disqualification from driving for failure to pay child support causes some Members concern. There has been a lot of argument that does not accurately reflect what is being proposed. I would just like to take a little time to set out the true position.
Clause 16 will enable an order to be made by the court — and I want to emphasise that it is by the court — disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. This penalty will exist as an alternative to committal proceedings — that is, to imprisoning a person who wilfully fails to meet his financial obligations to his children. I wish to emphasise again that this will be a decision of the court, not a decision of this legislation.
This penalty, like imprisonment, will be imposed very much as a last resort on those parents who have resisted every attempt to get them to meet their responsibilities to their children. By the time it is considered, the non-resident parent will have had every opportunity to dispute his liability or to appeal to an independent tribunal.
The amount owed will have been determined in accordance with the provisions of the child support legislation. The court will consider, in the presence of the person concerned — I emphasise "in the presence of the person concerned" — all the circumstances of the case when deciding whether disqualification from driving or imprisonment is the appropriate penalty.
In coming to that decision, in addition to looking at a non-resident parent’s financial circumstances, the court will need to find out whether the licence is needed to earn a living. This does not mean that where the liable person needs a driving licence to earn a living the licence can never be removed. It is just one of the circumstances the court must take into account before imposing the penalty.
Imprisonment is already a penalty, under the existing child support legislation. This amendment, if accepted, would remove the driving licence sanction. This would mean that for those non-resident parents who have wilfully refused to pay maintenance and who have evaded other methods of enforcement the only option for the Child Support Agency will be to apply to the court for the most severe sanction — committal to prison.
If that is unsuccessful, there is no punishment whatsoever for the evasion of parental obligation. The removal of a driving licence gives the court an alternative penalty that allows the non-resident parent to continue working and to be in a position to pay the maintenance due. It will be the decision of the court whether the non-resident parent has deliberately refused or neglected to pay the maintenance owed. If the court decides that a penalty is appropriate, it will consider the circumstances of each case before deciding whether disqualification or committal is the right penalty.
It is reasonable to expect people to act in a way that is acceptable to society. That is not asking too much. If they do not do so, then they must be penalised or punished to show that their actions are not acceptable. Non-resident parents have an obligation to pay child support. It goes without saying that every opportunity will be given to those parents to enable them to make payment arrangements. That is acceptable behaviour. If they do not pay, they must be persuaded to do so. If that means using a final sanction, then it should be used.
The important point is that no non-resident parent needs to have his driving licence revoked. All he has to do is start paying maintenance and make arrangements to pay any arrears. This applies to a very small number of parents who will go to any lengths to avoid supporting their children. I am sure the Assembly will agree that a non-resident parent must be encouraged to pay any maintenance due. If a period of disqualification achieves that, and a genuine effort is made to clear the debt, then the licence is returned.
I am convinced that the possibility of having his driving licence withdrawn will make any non-resident parent think twice about trying to evade his responsibilities. The proposals strike the appropriate balance between ensuring maintenance is paid and recognising the individual circumstances of the non-resident parent.
I am somewhat confused by the proposal to leave out this clause. Are the Members who support this amendment saying that withdrawing a driving licence from those rogue parents who refuse to face up to their responsibilities is too lenient, and that the only fitting punishment is prison? That is the only option the court would be left with. I suspect not. What they are saying is that the rights of the rogue parent who wilfully and deliberately refuses to face his responsibilities to his children are more important than the rights of the innocent parties, namely the children. That cannot be right by anybody’s standards.
The non-inclusion of this clause in the Bill would be a breach of parity. That applies equally to other amendments that will be considered today or tomorrow. Some people are under the impression that parity simply means the payment of the same benefits at the same rate. They could not be more wrong.
Parity includes having the same conditions for the receipts of benefits and the same penalties and sanctions for failure to meet obligations to society, and the simultaneous introduction of new provisions relating to benefits, pensions and child support. Parity brings with it not only rights but obligations. You cannot have parity for the bits of the social security system that you like and ignore it for those parts that you do not like.
It is all or nothing.

Mr David Ford: Does the Minister not accept that for 50years the Government in this place made major differences, ranging from the selective employment tax rate to the Safeguarding of Employment Act 1947 which was rather more popular on his side of the House than on this one?

Mr Maurice Morrow: We are dealing with benefits today, MrFord. Perhaps that was unclear.
There is a compelling reason for the maintenance of parity. It is a simple one — it is called money. The money to pay contributory benefits, such as the retirement pension and incapacity benefit, comes from contributions paid into Northern Ireland’s national insurance fund by the employed, self-employed and employers. To put it bluntly, these contributions are nowhere near sufficient to meet the amount we need to pay for contributory benefits in Northern Ireland. Every year the shortfall is made up by a transfer from Great Britain’s national insurance fund. For example, in 1998-99, the Northern Ireland fund needed a transfer totalling £123million. I hope the Assembly heard that. I repeat it: £123million.

Mr David Ervine: Can the Minister tell me what value the Exchequer would place on the removal of a driving licence, and how that would help to pay for the shortfall?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I happen to believe that if you feel that it is not important —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has in no way been the only offender in this regard, but I encourage him and other contributors to speak through the Chair.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The withdrawal of a driving licence is one method by which we can ensure that non-resident parents face up to their obligations and responsibilities. I hope the Member understands that.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister confirm that the withdrawal of a licence does not allow the Government to refund the money that was originally paid for the licence? Therefore, in parity terms we lose nothing, whereas if we do not take this approach, we will breach parity and lose even more.
Will he also confirm for the record that since 1948, after the welfare state was established, successive Governments in this place did not breach parity in order to secure social security benefit for Northern Ireland?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank the Member for that important point. I say again that if we do not adopt this Bill in its entirety, we will break parity, and for me that is crucial. I want to reiterate the point that in 1998-99 the Northern Ireland national insurance fund needed a transfer of £123million from the Great Britain national insurance fund just to break even.
The money for other benefits, such as disability living allowance and income support, comes from the Exchequer and is conditional on the maintenance of parity. Is it sensible, or reasonable, to put the financial benefits of parity at risk so that a few people who fail to meet their obligations to society and their children can get away with it? I ask the Assembly to stop and think of that. In my opinion, it is neither sensible nor reasonable. It cannot be right to say that a person who is able to support his children, but who wilfully refuses to do so, has an inalienable right to drive his car. To fail to support your child when you are able to do so is totally unacceptable and must be punished. I strongly recommend that the Assembly reject the amendment and agree that clause16 stand part of the Bill.
I am imploring the Assembly on this: whether its duration be long or short, let it be said that when it had an opportunity to throw its weight behind those who could not defend or stand up for themselves — our children — this Assembly was not found wanting.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by Members. Mr Ford queried the importance of parity. In relation to this Bill, it is all or nothing. One cannot cherry- pick this Bill and take only the bits that one wants. There are responsibilities that go with the privileges.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Minister may not be able to answer this question at this particular juncture, but it is extremely important for us to know the answer because it may determine how people vote. The Department of Social Security is to test discrete elements of the new scheme in England and Wales prior to its being introduced in Northern Ireland. Is this one of the parts to be tested and, therefore, is it possible that it may not be introduced in Northern Ireland if it fails to meet the requirements elsewhere?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I sincerely hope that this is one part of the Bill that will be introduced in Northern Ireland, because it would be a very effective step to take to ensure that people who should be paying for their children do so. As my hon Friend Mr P Robinson has said, there has been an attempt by Members who have spoken to take this clause out. They want to make it into a toothless piece of legislation. We have enough of that already. We want to make sure that this Bill goes through the Assembly and that it has some teeth, and I would prefer those teeth to be very sharp.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I will ask the question again. I know what the Minister’s hopes and desires are, because I have heard from him and from other members of his party on this point. Is it the intention that this part of the scheme be piloted, and is it therefore possible that it may not be introduced in Northern Ireland if it is seen to fail elsewhere?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have 40 or 50 questions to go through here, and I assure the Member that by the time I come to that issue, I will endeavour to answer her question.
Mr Ford said that a person found guilty of drink-driving would get a disqualification of one year. It will be up to the courts, and the courts alone, to consider the period of disqualification, which can be anything up to two years. Some Members have queried why the courts should decide. I can not think of a better arena to decide such a thing. Mr Weir made that point adequately. Mr Ford also said —

Mr David Ford: Does the Minister accept that there is a further section that allows for an extension? Would it not be more accurate to talk about an extendable two years?

Mr Maurice Morrow: That is the Member’s interpretation.

Mr David Ford: What is the Minister’s interpretation of the part of clause 16 (3) that would insert article 37A(7) into the 1991 Order, as set out on page 15 line 20, if he wishes to dispute my interpretation?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yes, that is right — the two years can be extended. I am glad that we can agree on something.
Mr Ford went on to talk about an appropriate and workable sanction. Now, not many Members came up with an alternative during the whole debate. As a matter of fact, I doubt if I heard one. The comments were all "Pull it down. Throw it down. No, no, no." But the court would consider whether the person needed the licence to earn his living. It is a measure of the last resort, applicable to people who can pay but will not, and who have been persistent in non-payment.
The people who come before the court are not there because they are angels; they are there because they have wilfully defaulted in their payment and they will not pay what their children are entitled to. That is why they are in court. That is why they may lose their driving licence, and it is to be hoped that Members keep that point to the forefront when they are voting.
Mr Ford asked how many other countries use the withdrawal of licences.

Mr David Ford: I did not say that; you have got the wrong person.

A Member: It was Mr ONeill.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Was it?
This sanction is used in the United States of America — in Texas and in Minnesota. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members should not speak from a sedentary position.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Europe also uses this sanction for offences which are not related to child support, so it is not new or unique. There are some excellent Europeans in the Assembly — people who pride themselves on being more European than British or, as some claim, Irish. Let them be Europeans today and go down that road.
Michelle Gildernew raised the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legal advice is that this provision is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Ford stated that breaking parity with regard to clause16 would have cost implications. There are cost implications, for example, if the parent with care is on benefits, the Department for Social Development has to pick up the continuing costs of those benefits, because the absent parent cannot be sanctioned in that way.
Mr ONeill asked — and if I misquote him, it is not intentional — if the measure had been tested, and he raised the matter of the right to vote. The measure is being introduced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to give courts an alternative to prison sentences, which is currently the only sanction available for persistent offenders.
With regard to the right to vote, other documents are available for identity purposes. Licences are used for identity purposes only —

Mr Peter Robinson: If the Minister cannot answer this question now, I will be content with a written answer. If the existing legislation allows for prison sentences, can the Minister indicate whether the courts have taken advantage of this up until now, and, if so, in how many cases?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I cannot give Mr Robinson a definitive answer, but I will write to him.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I am sure that all Members agree that this Bill is a great improvement on the current process for child support provision. SammyWilson made the point — and I agree with him — that the bulk of this Bill will reduce a great deal of the intricacies in the system and the difficulties that people had to face while working with it in the past. In the light of Sammy Wilson’s comments and the Minister’s earlier answers, will the Minister, when he is preparing his reply to MrRobinson, also indicate how many cases were taken that failed due to the intricacies of the existing arrangements?
The point was made that no alternatives were put forward today. The court situation could have enough flexibility now to make a real impact with an improved system for calculation and an improved system for ensuring that people would be brought to book properly.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I assure MrONeill that his point will be taken into account and a full and definitive answer will be given. Perhaps he will reconsider his support for the withdrawal of clause16. He would be doing everyone a service, particularly those children who have been neglected and whose parent is not prepared to accept responsibility for them.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The Minister’s explanatory and financial memorandum shows that while there are no present plans to operate a pilot exercise to look at some provisions of the Bill, he would provide, if it were considered prudent, the option of pilot changes where advisable. Will the Minister confirm — and some doubts about clause 16 have been expressed by Members today — that if it were considered prudent that this particular provision be piloted, he would be prepared to consider that at some stage?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yes, if it would be prudent.
I will return to Mr ONeill’s point about the withdrawal of driving licences with respect to voting. By law, you do not need a driving licence to vote. It is one of a number of means of identification you can use when you go to a polling station.
MsMcWilliams raised the point about abused women. The effects of taking away licences on parents with care will be taken into consideration. I hope I covered that adequately during my submission. It seems that some Members think that a driving licence is taken away automatically. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr David Ervine: I do not have my papers to hand. However, the Bill states that the court, and only the court, can determine such a thing. How can the Minister tell us, as he did earlier and in his most recent comment, that this is an issue of last resort? It states clearly in the Bill that the licence will be taken away if, and only if, the court believes it to be right.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am a bit confused at the tenor of the question. When I was answering, I said that the court decides whether the driving licence stays or goes — not the Department. The legislation does not make that decision — the provision is within the legislation.

Mr David Ervine: The point that I am making is that, in an earlier assertion, the Minister said that it would be decided as an issue of last resort. Since the Minister will not be determining that, how can he tell us that that is what the judge will determine as an issue of last resort?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The proposed article36A(1) says
"Where the Department has sought to recover an amount by virtue of Article 35 and that amount, or any portion of it, remains unpaid, the Department may apply to the court under this Article".
The operative word is "may". Nobody can tell the court how it should handle the matter.
The court, in whom I have confidence, will deal with the matter.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the Minister agree that in terms of the provisions, at first instance, the Department has the discretion to refer the matter to the court, but the court also has a discretionary power. This is illustrated by clause 37A, a point which was referred to by MrErvine. There is a major difference between a discretionary power which is indicated by the word "may" and a court’s mandatory power which is indicated by the word "shall".

Mr Maurice Morrow: I accept that point, but some Members are taking their eyes off the picture: a case will only go before a court when all other methods have failed. A case comes to court when an individual has wilfully neglected his responsibilities after being given umpteen opportunities to fulfil his obligations. I take the point very strongly — [Interruption]

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yes, in a second. A defenceless child also has rights. Let us go to the heart of this matter and not only defend the child but be seen to do so.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Under Standing Order 24, I beg to move That the Question be now put.

Mr Speaker: That Question can only be put at sixo’clock. You are slightly ahead of the game.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am still for it.

Mr Speaker: It is possible to do that in about two and a half minutes’ time. Until then the Minister may continue. I would remind the Minister and others of the import of what the Member has said. It is possible at six o’clock to propose that the Question be put and, if it is agreed, the Question will be put. We would then continue with the rest of the Consideration Stage.

Mr Derek Hussey: That can only be done by someone who has not taken part in the debate.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It is obvious that I am not going to be able to deal with all the questions adequately here as time is slipping away. I assure Members that I will respond in writing to anyone who has raised a point here today to which I have not replied. I do not want anyone to feel that he has been cheated.
I do want to deal with Ms McWilliams’s point. It is clear from the memorandum of the Bill, paragraph253 clause27, that there are no plans to pilot any of the provisions. However, it is considered prudent to have the option to pilot changes, should this appear advisable. I hope that that will alleviate the Member’s genuine concern about the matter, and I am assured that this will be the case. I hope that she takes that point on board. I could say a lot more but time has run out. Members have a chance now to do something real for the children whose custodians they claim to be. Let us not fail them now.
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 34.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson. [Tellers: David McClarty and David Hilditch]
Noes
Eileen Bell, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney. [Tellers: David Ford and Barry McElduff]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Debate suspended.

Assembly Business

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, A Cheann Comhairle. It relates to a conversation I had this afternoon with Minister BairbredeBrún. Obviously the Minister will make her own statement to Members at the first available opportunity. I would like to set on record that the Minister was available this morning and was prepared. I think, MrSpeaker, that you will acknowledge that there was no attempt — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Alex Maskey: As I have already said, the Minister will speak to Members in the Chamber — after having this discussion with yourself today — at the first available opportunity. I just want to put on record on behalf of our party and the Minister that there was no intention at all of slighting Members of this House. The Minister was prepared and ready. There was a difficulty regarding the time frame — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I was asked earlier whether the Minister had tried to get in touch. I advised that it would have been difficult because I was preoccupied with some visitors. I can confirm that the Minister was subsequently in touch with me and advised that there had been some confusion or difficulty about time. The Minister may speak on that matter herself at an appropriate time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, would you care to rule on whether this is a point of order? Can a Member get up to try to defend a Minister in this House and say that it is a point of order? There is nothing in ‘Erskine May’ that would give any Member of the British House of Commons the right to do what we have heard as a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Of all the Members in this Chamber there is none who knows better the capacity for flexibility on the part of a Speaker and a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I hope that you do the same to others who get up and defend their Ministers.

Mr Speaker: This is hardly a precedent, as the Member knows well, at the beginning of, and later in, sittings.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of comments that I made earlier about this matter on which remarks have just been made, may I ask whether it is not the case that nothing, but nothing, will excuse or cover up the shameful behaviour of the Minister in not attending this House? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows that is not a point of order.
We will resume at 10.30am tomorrow with a statement, followed by continuation of the Consideration Stage.
The sitting was suspended at 6.13 pm.